Vitamina D, a vitamina do Sol, ajuda no tratamento de asma

__

A irresponsabilidade de muitos dermatologistas em não se atualizarem como médicos, ou informarem honestamente a população, atende aos interesses financeiros dos fabricantes de protetores solares e prejudica a saúde de inúmeras pessoas em diferentes níveis de gravidade, inclusive levando à morte parcela delas.

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

afiltro-solar

__

21/05/13 – BBC

Tomar sol tem um efeito positivo para os pacientes que sofrem de asma.

Cientistas da Universidade King’s College, de Londres, mostraram uma ligação direta entre baixos níveis de vitamina D, que é fabricada pelo corpo durante a exposição ao Sol, e a piora dos sintomas da asma.

aimagem-asma

As pessoas que têm asma apresentam dificuldades para respirar quando suas vias aéreas ficam inchadas, inflamadas e contraídas, e elas geralmente são tratadas com esteroides, mas nem todos respondem bem.

O trabalho revela que o contato com a luz solar “acalma” uma parte do sistema imunológico que é estimulada em excesso pela asma.

Já se sabia que a vitamina D é essencial para ativar o sistema imunológico e, há poucos dias, pesquisadores escoceses alertaram que as campanhas contra o câncer de pele estão tendo um efeito colateral grave quanto aos benefícios de se tomar Sol:

 asol

“Nós sabemos que pessoas com altos níveis de vitamina D conseguem controlar melhor sua asma – esta conexão chama bastante a atenção,” disse a pesquisadora Catherine Hawrylowicz.

A equipe da cientista investigou o impacto da vitamina em uma substância química do corpo humano, a interleucina-17, uma parte vital do sistema imunológico que ajuda a combater infecções.

Entretanto, a substância também pode causar problemas quando atinge níveis muito altos e já foi relacionada intensamente à asma.

O estudo mostrou que a vitamina D reduz os níveis de interleucina-17 nos pacientes.

A equipe está realizando agora uma série de testes clínicos para ver se a administração de vitamina D como suplemento pode substituir a exposição ao Sol para a sintetização natural do composto.

Fontes: BBC e http://www.diariodasaude.com.br/news.php?article=vitamina-d-tratamento-asma&id=8862&nl=nlds

__

Vitamina D, a vitamina do sol, pode ajudar no tratamento de asma

James Gallagher

Repórter de Ciência e Saúde da BBC News

Atualizado em  20 de maio, 2013 – 10:28 (Brasília) 13:28 GMT
Luz solar | Foto: BBCExposição à  luz solar pode ajudar  pacientes de  asma  que  não  respondem  bem a esteróides

O tempo que pacientes que sofrem de asma ficam sob a luz do sol pode ter um impacto sobre os efeitos da doença,  revela um estudo de uma equipe de cientistas da universidade King’s College, de Londres.

A pesquisa indica uma relação entre baixos níveis de vitamina D, que é fabricada pelo corpo durante a exposição ao sol, à piora dos sintomas da asma.

Dentre os resultados do trabalho, os especialistas descobriram que o contato com a luz solar “acalma” uma parte do sistema imunológico que é estimulada em excesso pela asma.

O tratamento de pacientes asmáticos com a administração de vitamina D, no entanto, não foi testado pelo estudo.

As pessoas que têm asma apresentam dificuldades para respirar quando suas vias aéreas ficam inchadas, inflamadas e contraídas, e elas geralmente são tratadas com esteroides, mas nem todos respondem bem.

Controle

“Nós sabemos que pessoas com altos níveis de vitamina D conseguem controlar melhor sua asma – esta conexão chama bastante a atenção”, disse a pesquisadora Catherine Hawrylowicz.

A equipe da cientista investigou o impacto da vitamina em uma substância química do corpo humano, interleucina-17.

Trata-se de uma parte vital do sistema imunológico que ajuda a combater infecções.

Entretanto, ela também pode causar problemas quando atinge níveis muito altos e já foi relacionada intensamente à asma.

Neste estudo, divulgado na publicação especializada Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, a vitamina D foi capaz de reduzir os níveis de interleucina-17 em 28 pacientes.

Testes clínicos

A equipe do King’s College realiza agora uma série de testes clínicos para ver se a administração de vitamina D pode realmente ajudar os pacientes de asma a lidarem melhor com os sintomas da doença.

O foco do estudo deve ser os pacientes que não respondem bem aos esteroides, e produzem sete vezes mais interleucina-17 do que os outros.

“Nós acreditamos que tratar as pessoas com vitamina D pode fazer com que os pacientes resistentes aos esteroides passem a responder a eles ou permitam que aqueles que já conseguem controlar sua asma tomem menos esteroides”, disse Hawrylowicz.

A especialista explica que uma cultura de se cobrir no sol e usar protetor solar pode ter aumentado as taxas de asma, mas ela aproveita para alertar que “sol demais faz mal”.

Efeitos colaterais

Malayka Rahman, da organização de caridade britânica voltada para o tratamento e esclarecimento sobre asma, a Asma UK, valoriza os resultados do trabalho.

“Para a maioria das pessoas com asma, os remédios atualmente disponíveis são uma forma efetiva de controlar a doença, mas nós sabemos que eles não funcionam para todos, e é por isso que pesquisar novos tratamentos é vital”, disse.

Ela também menciona o fato de muitos destes medicamentos apresentarem efeitos colaterais – algo que poderia ser aliviado com uma diminuição da quantidade de remédios ingeridos pelos asmáticos.

“Também sabemos que muitas pessoas com asma se preocupam com os efeitos adversos dessas drogas, então se a vitamina D reduzir a quantidade de remédios necessária, isto teria um impacto enorme na qualidade de vida desses pacientes”, afirmou.

___
Anúncios

Vitamina D – Reportagem com Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra e Daniel Cunha, na Rede Record

__

Este espaço tem as mais recentes informações sobre a descoberta pela pesquisa médica científica da vital importância preventiva e terapêutica da VITAMINA D3 e sobre o grave assunto de saúde pública das DOENÇAS AUTOIMUNES, que este hormônio na realidade pode PREVENIR e também solucionar.  Na COLUNA DA ESQUERDA deste site está situado em último lugar a categoria “VITAMINA D”.  Entrem ali e terão acesso às principais publicações, vídeos e programas feitos sobre esta vitamina-hormônio.  Ou apenas cliquem no link que dá acesso direto a todas elas:

Postagens sobre Vitamina D neste Blog

 https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/category/vitamina-d/

No meu canal do YouTube, todo o material de áudio, vídeos e programas sobre Vitamina D3 podem ser acessados neste endereço:

Vitamina D3 – 10.000 UI diárias é vital para preservar à saúde

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL301EAE2D5602A758

No Facebook apenas “curta” esta página e estará automaticamente inscrito:

Vitamina D é um hormônio vital para preservação da saúde

https://www.facebook.com/VitaminaD.HormonioVital

 

Leia também:

 

Por 30 anos, extensa revisão de toda a pesquisa anterior confirma que baixo nível de vitamina D é uma sentença de morte

 

Cientistas convocam para uma Ação de Saúde Pública tendo como modelo o uso do Hormônio-Vitamina D

Deficiência de Vitamina D: Um importante fator de risco para a doença cardiovascular

__

A vitamina D não é uma “vitamina”. Seu produto metabólico, calcitriol , é realmente um hormônio seco esteróide que é a chave que abre pontos de ligação do genoma humano. O genoma humano contém mais de 2.700 sítios de ligação para o calcitriol, que estão perto dos genes envolvidos em PRATICAMENTE TODAS AS DOENÇAS importantes conhecidas dos seres humanos.

genoma

__

Conforme estudos recentemente publicados, a deficiência de Vitamina D   [que  não é vitamina  e  sim  um hormônio  esteroide ASSOCIADO à SAÚDE  de todas as pessoas],  que é tradicionalmente associada com fraqueza óssea ou muscular,  também aumenta o risco da doença cardiovascular. Um crescente número de evidências relaciona baixos níveis de Vitamina D a fatores comuns da doença cardiovascular, como por exemplo, hipertensão arterial, diabetes, aterosclerose, além de outros eventos cardiovasculares maiores que incluem acidente vascular cerebral, insuficiência cardíaca e morte súbita por origem cardíaca. Mundialmente a prevalência da deficiência de vitamina D entre idosos é de quase 50%.

Resultados dos estudos sobre vitamina D e doença cardiovascular

Tem sido demonstrado que a deficiência de Vitamina D leva a diminuição na contratilidade cardíaca, tônus vascular, volume do colágeno cardíaco e desenvolvimento do tecido cardíaco, existindo uma crescente evidência vinculando resultados do tratamento com vitamina D para a melhoria da sobrevida na hemodiálise em pacientes no estágio final da doença renal, e melhoria na função cardíaca (1, 2).

Baixos níveis de vitamina D no plasma têm sido relacionados como um fator contributivo para a patogênese da insuficiência cardíaca congestiva (3), prevalente disfunção miocárdica, óbitos por insuficiência cardíaca congestiva, e morte cardíaca súbita (4).

Indivíduos com baixos níveis de vitamina D têm maior incidência de pressão alta, diabetes, e elevação nos triglicérides do que aqueles com mais altos níveis de vitamina D no plasma (5).

Estudos epidemiológicos recentes também têm vinculado a deficiência de vitamina D com um aumentado risco de eventos adversos cardiovasculares maiores (6). Um estudo envolvendo profissionais da saúde mostrou um risco 2 vezes maior de enfartes do miocárdio em indivíduos com deficiência D comparados com aqueles dentro de uma faixa normal (7). Similarmente um estudo prospectivo recente de coortes mediu os níveis de vitamina D em 3.258 pacientes adultos, os quais estavam sendo submetidos a cateterização cardíaca eletiva. Durante o seguimento médio de 7.7 anos, os indivíduos no mais baixo quartíl de 25-hydroxyvitamin D no soro tiveram um risco ajustado de 2 vezes no aumento de risco de óbito, especialmente óbito por doença cardiovascular, comparados com aqueles no mais alto quartil de vitamina D (8).

Baixos níveis de vitamina D aumentam o risco de eventos cardiovasculares entre pacientes com hipertensão, mas não entre aqueles sem hipertensão (6). Mulheres jovens com baixos níveis de vitamina D no plasma têm um aumentado risco para o desenvolvimento de hipertensão (9).

Níveis maiores de calcificação coronária são vistos naqueles pacientes com maior deficiência de vitamina D (10, 11).

A deficiência de vitamina D pode se estender a doenças vasculares além das artérias coronárias. Recente estudo determinou que quanto maior a deficiência de vitamina D, mais placa aterosclerótica era encontrada na carótida, através de avaliação por ultrasonografia. A espessura da íntima-medial da carótida é considerada uma medida substituta válida para a avaliação da aterosclerose coronária. Esse estudo concluiu que os baixos níveis de vitamina D encontrados no sangue representam um forte e independente preditor da aterosclerose. Também mostrou que a deficiência severa de vitamina D foi o dobro em diabéticos do que em não diabéticos (12).

Pessoas com pouca ou nenhuma função renal freqüentemente têm muitos baixos níveis de vitamina D, já que o rim é requerido para essa ativação (13). Estudo envolvendo pacientes com doença renal grave em diálise peritoneal demonstrou que o tratamento para corrigir a deficiência de vitamina D conseguiu uma dramática redução em enfartes e óbitos por doença cardíaca (14). Outro estudo revisando as evidências, tanto da ciência básica quanto de estudos clínicos, apoiou um possível papel protetor da vitamina D, além de seus efeitos no metabolismo mineral, sugerindo a necessidade para uma avaliação contínua do papel da vtamina D na saúde cardiovascular da população de pacientes com doença renal crônica (15).

Enfim, a restauração da vitamina D aos níveis normais pode ajudar a reduzir inflamação, a normalização da pressão sangüínea, e melhora da sensibilidade à insulina – fatores que podem reduzir o risco cardíaco (16, 17, 18, 19).

Estudo recentemente publicado no Jornal do Colégio Americano de Cardiologia emitiu recomendações práticas para a triagem e tratamento de pacientes com baixos níveis de vitamina D, especialmente naqueles com fatores de risco para doenças cardíacas e diabetes, ressaltando que a vitamina D é fácil de conseguir e sua suplementação é simples, segura e de baixo custo (20).

Fontes de vitamina D

A pele humana é rica em pré-vitamina D latente, a qual é ativada pela luz do sol. A vitamina D não é contida em um grau significante nos alimentos e nem deveria ser obtida através de consumo oral. Algumas das fontes naturais de vitamina D incluem salmão, sardinhas, óleo de fígado de bacalhau, e de alimentos fortificados com vitamina D, incluindo leite e alguns cereais. A vitamina D pode também ser fornecida na forma de suplementos.

As pessoas deveriam obter vitamina D através da exposição ao sol. Entretanto, através dos séculos as pessoas têm migrado para lugares mais frios e privados de climas mais ensolarados, trabalhando internamente em escritórios ou fábricas, fazendo viagens de automóvel, exercícios em ginásios ao invés de ao ar livre, e vestindo roupas que cobrem praticamente 95% da superfície do corpo. De fato, mesmo adultos vivendo em lugares ensolarados são passiveis de deficiência de vitamina D, pelo menos durante uma parte do ano. Assim o consumo oral de vitamina D se tornou necessário tendo em vista que os seres humanos desenvolveram estilos de vida envolvendo menos e menos exposição ao sol. Adicionando-se a isso a fobia promovida pelos dermatologistas que aconselham a população de que exposição ao sol causa câncer de pele, com muitas pessoas privando-se do sol e, portanto incapazes de ativar a vitamina D (21).

A teoria de Carl J Reich sobre a deficiência de cálcio e vitamina D

Há cerca de 53 anos Carl Reich acreditava que muitos dos sintomas e doenças da civilização poderiam ser atribuídos à deficiência crônica de cálcio e vitamina D, criada por defeitos específicos no estilo de vida, incluindo dieta, podendo levar à acidose.

No início de sua prática clínica nos anos 50 ele acompanhou diversos pacientes exibindo todos os sinais físicos e sintomas de um sistema nervoso autônomo sobre-estimulado os quais muito freqüentemente eram classificados como de origem psicossomática, como por exemplo: fadiga crônica, fraqueza física, ansiedade, distúrbios do sono, dores de cabeça, câimbras, etc…

Reich descobriu que seus pacientes saudáveis tinham leituras na saliva, feitas através de papel litmus, com medidas de neutro para alcalino de 7,0 para 7,5 pH que ele acreditava fielmente representassem o pH do sangue e tecidos. Enquanto isso os pacientes não saudáveis tinham leituras de saliva ácida mostrando evidência de um pH ácido no sangue na direção de ou abaixo de 6,5.

Dentro de poucas semanas ou meses de dieta com vitaminas e minerais e mudanças suplementares o pH ácido na saliva dos pacientes tratados podiam retornar a leituras mais normais de neutro para alcalino, de 7 para 7,5 pH, acompanhadas pelo desaparecimento de sintomas (22)

Referências

  1. Zittermann A. Vitamin D and disease prevention with special reference to cardiovascular disease. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;92(1):39-48.

  2. Achinger SG, Ayus JC. The role of vitamin D in left ventricular hypertrophy and cardiac function. Kidney Int Suppl. 2005 Jun;(95):S37-S42.

  3. Zittermann A, Schleithoff SS, Tenderich G, Berthold HK, Korfer R, Stehle P. Low vitamin D status: a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of congestive heart failure? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Jan 1;41(1):105–12.

  4. Pilz S, Marz W, et al. Association of vitamin D deficiency with heart failure and sudden cardiac death in a large cross-sectional study of patients referred for coronary angiography. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, Oct 2008, 93(10): 3927-3935

  5. Martins D, Wolf M, Pan D, et al. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and the serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin d in the United States: data from the third national health and nutrition examination survey. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jun 11;167(11):1159-65.

  6. Wang T, Pencina MJ, Booth SL, et al. Vitamin D deficiency and risk of cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 2008 Jan 29;117(4):503-11.

  7. Giovannuci E, Liu Y, Hollis BW, Rimm EB. 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and risk of myocardial infarction in men: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1174-80

  8. Dobnig H, Pilz S, Schanagl H et al. Independent association of low serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D  and 1,25-Hydroxyvitamin D levels with all cause and cardiovascular mortality. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1340-9

  9. Forman JP, Curhan GC, Taylor EM. Plasma 25-Hydroxyvitamin D levels and risk of hypertension among young women. Hypertension. 2008, 52:828

  10. Watson KE, Abrolat ML, Malone LL, et al. Active serum vitamin D levels are inversely correlated with coronary calcification. Circulation. 1997 Sep 16;96(6):1755-60.

  11. Zittermann A, Schleithoff SS, Koerfer R. Vitamin D and vascular calcification. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2007 Feb;18(1):41-6.

  12. Targher G, Bertolini L, Padovani R, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 concentrations and carotid artery intima-media thickness among type 2 diabetic patients. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2006 Nov;65(5):593-7.

  13. Levin A, Li YC. Vitamin D and its analogues: do they protect against cardiovascular disease in patients with kidney disease? Kidney Int. 2005 Nov;68(5):1973-81.

  14. Taskapan H, Ersoy FF, Passadakis PS, et al. Severe vitamin D deficiency in chronic renal failure patients on peritoneal dialysis. Clin Nephrol. 2006 Oct;66(4):247-55.

  15. Shoji T, Shinohara K, Kimoto E, et al. Lower risk for cardiovascular mortality in oral 1alpha-hydroxy vitamin D3 users in a haemodialysis population. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004 Jan;19(1):179-84.

  16. Pfeifer M, Begerow B, Minne HW, Nachtigall D, Hansen C. Effects of a short-term vitamin D(3) and calcium supplementation on blood pressure and parathyroid hormone levels in elderly women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Apr;86(4):1633-7.

  17. Lind L, Hanni A, Lithell H, et al. Vitamin D is related to blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors in middle-aged men. Am J Hypertens. 1995 Sep;8(9):894-901.

  18. Timms PM, Mannan N, Hitman GA, et al. Circulating MMP9, vitamin D and variation in the TIMP-1 response with VDR genotype: mechanisms for inflammatory damage in chronic disorders? QJM. 2002 Dec;95(12):787-96.

  19. Zittermann A. Vitamin D and disease prevention with special reference to cardiovascular disease. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;92(1):39-48.

  20. Lee JH, O’Keefe JH, et al. Vitamin D deficiency, an important, common, and easily treatable cardiovascular risk factor?. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 1949-1956

  21. William Davis,, Vidamin D’s crucial role in cardiovascular protection, LE Magazine, September 2007.

  22. Calcium and Vitamin D Deficiency. The clinical work and theory of Carl J. Reich, MD. Publicado em 1995 pela “Foundation for Erradication of Rheumatoid Disease”, e disponível em http://www.arthritistrust.org/Articles/Calcium%20and%20Vitamin%20D%20Deficiency.pdf

Fonte:  http://www.infarctcombat.org/polemica-47/icem.html

Obesidade pode levar à deficiência de vitamina D, mas o contrário não ocorre

 

__

 

Pesquisadores  estimam  que  cada  10%  de  aumento  no  IMC  leva  a  4,2%  de  queda  na  concentração  de vitamina D

 

 

 

Obesidade-e-Diabetes

 

 

A obesidade pode levar à deficiência de vitamina D, mas a deficiência de vitamina D não leva à obesidade. Essa é a principal conclusão de um amplo estudo que analisou dados de 42.024 participantes de 21 pesquisas, publicado nesta terça-feira no periódico científico Plos Medicine.

English: A Collection of Articles on Disease M...

English: A Collection of Articles on Disease Mongering in PLoS Medicine Español: Portada del monográfico publicado en Public Library of Science – Medicine sobre promoción de enfermedades (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Para os autores, a descoberta tem grande importância para a saúde pública,  uma vez que a obesidade vem crescendo em todo o mundo, o que indica que a deficiência de vitamina D também pode aumentar.

 

A vitamina D é produzida pela pele após a exposição ao sol, mas também pode ser obtida através da alimentação. Ela é encontrada principalmente em leite e derivados, além de peixes oleosos, como cação e salmão, ricos em ômega 3. A falta dessa vitamina pode causar, além de problemas ósseos, alterações na liberação de insulina e no controle da pressão arterial, por exemplo.

 

O estudo relacionou os principais genes ligados à obesidade com aqueles referentes à vitamina D, e a associação entre o aumento do índice de massa corporal (IMC – calcule aqui seu IMC) e a redução da vitamina D se mostrou muito consistente.  Os pesquisadores  estimam que cada 10% de aumento no IMC leva a 4,2% de queda na concentração de vitamina  D  mas,  por outro lado, a deficiência de vitamina D não exerce influência sobre o IMC.

 

“Nosso estudo sugere que uma intervenção a nível populacional para reduzir a obesidade poderia levar a uma redução na prevalência de deficiência de vitamina D”, afirmam os autores.

 

Fonte: http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/saude/obesidade-pode-levar-a-deficiencia-de-vitamina-d-mas-o-contrario-nao-ocorre

 

__

 

 

Cientistas convocam para uma Ação de Saúde Pública tendo como modelo o uso do Hormônio-Vitamina D

__

CIENTISTAS CONVOCAM PARA UMA AÇÃO D*  

[*PROJETO QUE TEM O PROPÓSITO DE SERVIR COMO UM MODELO DE SAÚDE PÚBLICA COM A VITAMINA D] 

A DEFICIÊNCIA DE VITAMINA D É EPIDÊMICA
__

Sobre o assunto, assista também: Vitamina D3 – 10.000 UI diárias é vital para à saúde

__
Scientists’ Call to D*action
The Vitamin D Deficiency Epidemic

vita d1

40-75% of the world’s population is vitamin D deficient.

The causal link between severe vitamin D deficiency and rickets or the bone disease of osteomalacia is overwhelming, while the link between vitamin D insuffiency and osteoporosis with associated decreased muscle strength and increased risk of falls in osteoporotic humans is well documented by evidencebased intervention studies.

There are newly appreciated associations between vitamin D insufficiency and many other diseases, including tuberculosis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, type-1 diabetes, high blood pressure, increased heart failure, myopathy, breast and other cancers which are believed to be linked to the non-calcemic actions of the parent vitamin D and its daughter steroid hormone. Based on the evidence we now have at hand, action is urgent.

It is projected that the incidence of many of these diseases could be reduced by 20%-50% or more, if the occurrence of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency were eradicated by increasing vitamin D intakes through increased UVB exposure, fortified foods or supplements. The appropriate intake of vitamin D required to effect a significant disease reduction depends on the individual’s age, race, lifestyle, and latitude of residence. The latest Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, 2010, indicates 10,000 IU/day is considered the NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level). 4000 IU/day can be considered a safe upper intake level for adults aged 19 and older.

It is well documented that the darker the skin, the greater the probability of a vitamin D deficiency. Even in southern climates, 55% of African Americans and 22% of Caucasians are deficient.

More than 1 billion people worldwide are affected at a tremendous cost to society.

A Scientists’ Call to Action has been issued to alert the public to the importance to have vitamin D serum levels between 40 and 60 nanograms/milliliter (100-150 nanomoles/liter) to prevent these diseases. Implementing this level is safe and inexpensive.

The benefit of an adequate vitamin D level to each individual will be better overall health and a reduction in illnesses and, ultimately, a significant reduction in health care costs. The benefit of adequate vitamin D levels to society/businesses is a more productive workforce and, lower health care costs.

The D*action project has as its purpose to serve as a model for public health action on vitamin D. It is a test bed for techniques, and for providing outcome evaluation at a community level.

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/epidemic

A verdade sobre a Vitamina D: sua carência é promovida por conflito de interesses – The Truth about Vitamin D

__

Everyone’s talking about vitamin D right now, especially since the Institute of Medicine’s Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) updated their recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for it.

Há interesses na gestão da Medicina associados com os da Indústria Farmacêutica e não com a preservação da saúde

Há interesses na gestão da Medicina associados com os da Indústria Farmacêutica e não com a preservação da saúde

By Dr. Joseph Mercola
Mercola.com

What if a cure for cancer has been right here all along? What if the very agency charged with protecting your health is the one keeping you from that cure?

 

 

A Lawless, Rogue Agency Out of Control

 

Ten years ago a former New York State assemblyman, Daniel Haley, wrote a scathing exposé on how the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) systematically shuts the door on effective and non-toxic products, many for cancer.

The FDA is the chief agency in charge of protecting and promoting Americans’ health and safety. But in 10 stunning, true stories in his book, “The Politics of Healing,” Haley describes how the FDA has suppressed and banned natural health cures – eight of them for cancer.

He later wrote about two additional cancer cures that worked, which the FDA also disallowed.

The FDA even admitted that one of these treatments, discovered by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, was successful with some of the most incurable forms of cancer.

I shared this with you in a recent article that showed his film, but stories like this are far too common, and you can’t help but wonder how many people have died while the FDA denied them cancer treatments that work.

Haley brazenly calls the FDA a rogue, out of control agency that has lied in Congressional testimonies, deliberately falsified data, and destroyed evidence to prohibit cures like Burzynki’s from coming to market. The FDA’s loyalties are to the drug industry, not to individuals, Haley says.

His claims mirror those of Dr. David Graham, who once worked in the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety. In 2004 Dr. Graham blew the whistle on six drugs that were harming people, including Vioxx, but instead of acting on his warnings, Graham’s superiors pulled him off his job.

He fought back in a PBS television special when he told how he’d been chastised at the FDA for thinking the FDA served the public. The “FDA is there to serve the drug industry,” Graham said his supervisors told him.

 

 

‘Virtually Every’ Drug Company Now Targeting Cancer Therapies

 

Today, the FDA continues to serve its client, Big Pharma, by making sure that toxic chemotherapy, along with surgery and radiation, are the only cancer treatment options legally available to you. This industry is huge, with 139 cancer treatment drugs in the pipeline just for women alone.

All told there are over 900 experimental cancer therapies under investigation. No wonder so many pharmaceutical companies are ramping up their cancer drug research!

According to the New York Times:

“Virtually every large pharmaceutical company seems to have discovered cancer, and a substantial portion of the smaller biotechnology companies are focused on it as well. Together, the companies are pouring billions of dollars into developing cancer drugs.”

Note they said drugs, not cures. That’s because this industry isn’t set up for a cure, even though they say that’s what they’re looking for. It’s also why economic forecasts predict 20 million new cancers by 2025, with the $50 billion-a-year cancer treatment business increasing by 15 percent a year. Pfizer alone projects its annual cancer drug returns will be $11 billion by 2018.

The truth is that most Americans are deficient in vitamin D, and studies show that vitamin D supplementation can both prevent and kill many infections and diseases, including cancer.

Vitamin D isn’t actually a vitamin, although scientists refer to it as such. It’s actually a steroid hormone that you get from sun exposure, food sources and/or supplementation.

The term refers to either vitamin D2 or D3, but according to the National Vitamin D Council, D3 (chemical name 25-hydroxy vitamin D) is real vitamin D, and is the same substance produced naturally through your skin by sun exposure.

Older research appears at odds on whether your body cares which form of D it’s getting. But a study in the January 2011 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found that D3 is 87 percent more effective than D2, and is the preferred form for treating vitamin D deficiency. It’s measured in international units (IU’s) in nanograms per milliliter, or ng/mL.

The Vitamin D Council believes that a person’s D3 levels should be at least 50 ng/mLfor your body to function properly. (To determine whether you might be deficient, you need to get your vitamin D levels tested, and ideally, you’ll want to get tested regularly thereafter to ensure you’re maintaining optimal levels year-round.)

Fourteen famous vitamin D researchers gave the FNB this information, but the FNB apparently ignored the information that the researchers presented because their “updated” RDA levels ended up being so pitifully low that it’s doubtful it can significantly impact Americans’ deficiency, let alone fight off diseases like cancer and heart disease.

 

 

Experts Protest ‘Impossible’ New RDA Levels

 

Depending on your age, the new recommendations are 600 to 800 IUs a day for adults and between zero and 600 IUs a day for children. The FNB also said that taking vitamin D in amounts of 10,000 IUs or more could be dangerous – but that’s ridiculous, seeing that a 30-minute dose of sunshine can give an adult more than 10,000 IUs!

Since countless studies indicate that much higher levels of vitamin D are required for optimal health, it’s no surprise that experts lost no time denouncing the FNB’s recommendations.

“It’s almost impossible to significantly raise your vitamin D levels when supplementing (at the FNB levels),” the Vitamin D Council posted on its website.

 

 

Hidden Agendas and Conflicts of Interest

 

Suspecting that conflicts of interest and hidden agendas played a part in this, the Vitamin D Council filed Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests so they could examine the FNB’s notes on the process.

They’re still waiting on an answer, but I’m wondering if it doesn’t have something to do with the fact that over 1,350 clinical trials on vitamin D are currently being conducted by major drug companies, all based on the prevention or cure of many illnesses and diseases, including 388 for cancer.

Yes, cancer.

From breast to prostate, to colorectal to brain cancers, and even basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer), Drug companies such as Pfizer and Merck are currently either sponsoring or collaborating on clinical trials based on the premise that vitamin D administered orally, intravenously or topically (for skin cancer) may either prevent or cure cancer.

Cancer foundations and institutes are all in on the clinical study game as well, such as the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Even the U.S. Department of Defense and the Department of Veteran Affairs are studying ways to prevent and cure cancer with vitamin D!

What’s really interesting is that several of these studies are using vitamin D in amounts of 50,000 IUs a day or more – which flies strongly in the face of the FNB’s claims that self-supplementing with 10,000 could be dangerous to your health.

Since recent studies show that supplements of up to 40,000 IUs a day don’t appear to be toxic, and that doses as low as 400 IUs a day are too low to even maintain skeletal health, let alone prevent cancer.

 

 

The FDA’s Definition of Drug vs. Supplement

 

Over 800 studies already show that vitamin D could have cancer-prevention and/or treatment possibilities. But the problem is that it’s a natural substance that can’t be patented as a simple supplement, meaning there’s no real revenue in it, compared to a prescription brand drug.

That’s why many drug studies involving vitamins of any kind hinge on how the FDA defines drugs and supplements.

A drug is defined as a product meant for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a disease.

A supplement is defined as a product that is meant to simply “supplement” or “enhance” a normal diet within the daily allowances recommended by the FDA. Drugs – and retailers who sell supplements are not allowed to tell you that vitamin D can possibly “prevent, mitigate or cure” cancer without having the FDA accuse them of selling a drug that hasn’t been approved through the proper FDA process.

 

 

Again, Follow the Money if You Want to Know the Truth

 

That process of getting a drug to market costs an average $359 million and takes nearly 10 years– with a good portion of the money going directly to the FDA through user fees. Over the years these fees have become a major funding source for the FDA. What drug companies get in return is faster FDA reviews and drug approvals.

Doenças que já têm cura ou prevenção são mantidas por interesses contrários aos da saúde

Doenças que já têm cura ou prevenção são mantidas por interesses contrários aos da saúde

 

As a result, a kind of you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours scenario has ensued, with drug companies maintaining major leverage over the FDA when it comes to protecting their revenue sources, including making sure the $60 billion-a-year supplement business doesn’t get in the way of drug sales.

The history of FDA laws and regulations on file at Harvard Law School, explains how years ago an FDA task force long ago established this policy

“… to ensure that the presence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive to drug development.”

So how does this relate to too-low RDA levels for vitamin D?

A look at the clinical trials shows that most of them involve “high-potency” D3 supplements, which puts them in the drug category if it turns out they can mitigate, treat or cure cancer. And that means they can be patented – and sold to you as prescriptions at sky-high prices.

 

 

Drug Companies Are Elbowing Their Way into Your Healthcare Plan

 

Another way that Big Pharma has moved in on the cancer industry is through pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which administer drug benefits for about 95 percent of all patients with prescription drug coverage.

PBMs decide which drugs flow through the healthcare system. Supposedly they choose the best drugs and prices for your plan. But what if I told you that the businesses that sell the drugs have been helping to decide which drugs your PBM pays for?

Regulators have been working hard to nip conflicts of interest in the bud, but over the years numerous court cases have shown that drug companies and PBMs working together has led to higher prices and limited drug choices – and allegations of price-setting through secret deals with pharmaceutical companies.

 

 

Official Agencies Wedded to Toxic Chemotherapy

 

I have an employee who was diagnosed with breast cancer last year. After her mastectomy, she was told she had several months of chemotherapy and radiation ahead of her. But she sought a second opinion at a renowned cancer treatment center – and learned that chemotherapy was NOT going to be part of her treatment plan because her type of cancer doesn’t respond to chemotherapy.

“And since chemo is poison, why would we want to poison you for no reason?” the oncologist told her.

That’s right – a person in the business of “selling” cancer treatment actually said he wasn’t going to poison her “for no reason” – something I consider unusual in an industry that is wedded to toxic chemotherapy.

The employee was pronounced cancer-free four months later, without chemo or radiation, which may leave you wondering, as it did me, how many patients die every year from toxic chemotherapy they got but didn’t need?

Some experts believe that as much as 25 percent, or more, of patients who undergo chemotherapy are killed by it. Dr. Vincent Speckhart, a former U.S. Air Force flight surgeon and oncologist, was so concerned about deaths from chemo that he told a Congressional committee:

“After 13 years of using FDA-approved chemotherapy protocols, I concluded that such therapies were extremely toxic, poorly tolerated, and not effective in prolonging survival in most solid tumors of adults. In 1983, my patients began to request therapies other than chemotherapy. I agreed, and without even knowing it, I became an ‘alternative practitioner’ and was red-flagged by opponents of this form of therapy.”

In other words, if you’re a physician who divorces the status quo of cancer treatment, you’d better watch out.

In his book, Haley talks about how this “gross government intrusion into the healing arts,” costs thousands – and perhaps millions – of lives and facilitates the drug industry by squelching people like Dr. Speckhart and Burzynski.

 

 

Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Protect Your Healthcare Freedom

 

It doesn’t help that the FDA as well as other “official cancer medicine” agencies have a swinging door of employees going back forth between the agency and Big Pharma to work.

In a new book, “National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest,” former Cancer Prevention Coalition president Dr. Samuel S. Epstein shows just how bad the conflicts are.

Quoting former NCI director Samuel Broder, Epstein says “the NCI has become a government pharmaceutical company.” And the ACS, Epstein says, is more interested in “accumulating wealth than saving lives.”

With close ties to cancer treatment businesses, the ACS has a track record that “clearly reflects conflicts of interest” when it comes to cancer treatment policies and prevention strategies, Epstein alleges.

And so it goes… So, what you can do to protect yourself from getting cancer, or what can you do if you already have it? The good news is that knowledge is power, and there are things you can do for yourself, right now, not to only to prevent cancer, but to make sure you have the right cancer treatment if you do get it.

Because cancer is almost wholly a man-made disease, it’s especially important to recognize that you do have power over many things that could cause you to get cancer. Taking control of your health will put you in a position to make the best health decisions possible if you do get cancer.

 

Here’s a list to get you started on a cancer prevention plan:

  1. Normalize your vitamin D levels with safe amounts of sun exposure. This works primarily by optimizing your vitamin D level. Ideally, monitor your vitamin D levels throughout the year.
  2. Control your insulin levels by limiting your intake of processed foods and sugars/fructose as much as possible.
  3. Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats.
  4. Get appropriate exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.
  5. Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
  6. Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique.
  7. Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic.Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
  8. Maintain an ideal body weight.
  9. Get enough high-quality sleep.
  10. Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
  11. Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
  12. Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.

You also can help by voicing your opposition to the FDA’s censorship of alternative cancer treatments by sending a letter to your Congressional representatives and asking them to support H.R. 1364, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning the distribution of information on legitimate scientific research in connection with foods and dietary supplements.

Call or write your Congressman now, and stop the censorship of your right to alternative cancer therapies and possibly a cure.

Sponsored Link: The FDA is moving to BAN most natural health supplements. – Get them while you still can! Wellness Resources – High Quality Nutritional Supplement(Ad)

Fonte: http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/05/the-stunning-effect-of-this-single-vitamin-on-cancer/

__

Traíção de uma Nação: autoridades de saúde dos EUA estão protegendo a deficiência de Vitamina D para beneficiar a Indústria Farmacêutica. Betrayal of a Nation: Why U.S. health authorities are keeping you vitamin D deficient and who stands to gain

__

A prescrição diária de 10.000 UIs de Vitamina D representaria para a indústria farmacêutica uma perda de 40% de uma receita de trilhões de dólares

Quem não gosta de ser enganado criminosamente, pagando por isto como preço a perda de sua saúde, e mesmo de sua vida, tanto quanto a de seus familiares e amigos, SAIBA que o mesmo que é denunciado nos EUA pelo Dr. John Cannell,  também alcança o Brasil com mais força ainda e com muito mais prejuízos.  

Pelos formidáveis interesses da Indústria Farmacêutica, os governos tudo fazem.  Vocês somente poderão se opor a isto SE buscarem e examinarem as informações que de fato lhes interessem sobre preservação e recuperação da saúde.  Leia com atenção o trecho de sua entrevista abaixo, considerando que o que está entre colchetes foi colocados por nós.  

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352 – cgcoimbra@gmail.com

___

(…)  “Nos dias atuais, a Internet é um campo fértil para se manter informado sobre este assunto  [HORMÔNIO-VITAMINA D E SUA FUNÇA VITAL PARA A SAÚDE HUMANA],  embora não esteja à disposição de todos. Há centenas de artigos a respeito [HOJE, JÁ É DEZENAS DE MILHARES]  mas, infelizmente, muitos deles estão disponíveis somente em inglês. É o caso do texto do neuropsiquiatra John Cannell (http://goo.gl/LlQOK).    Ele acusa pesquisadores da indústria farmacêutica norte-americana de estarem tentando alterar a molécula da vitamina D, para transformá-la em uma substância  patenteável, ou seja, em remédio. A influência deles é tamanha, a ponto de se manterem unidos em comitês que “aconselham” o governo dos Estados Unidos a estabelecer a dose recomendável, entre 200 e no máximo 400 unidades por dia, bem aquém do necessário [SER, HOJE, EM DOSE PREVENTIVA 10.000 UI – NÃO MENOS].

Há orientação para não verificarção dos níveis de Vitamina D. E quando prescritas, são em dose ínfima perto da necessária em prevenção: 10.000 UI

Há orientação para não verificação de níveis de Vitamina D. E quando prescritas, são em dose ínfima perto da necessária em prevenção: 10.000 UI

 

Além de prescrever doses mínimas, a maioria dos médicos sequer solicita dosagem da vitamina D no sangue.

Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra ressalta que muitos  especialistas, que acompanham pacientes com osteoporose e recomendam essa quantidade de suplementação, ficariam surpresos ao constatar o quão baixo é o nível dessa substância no sangue.

Cannell denuncia exatamente isso. “Só deixando a pele dos braços e das pernas expostas, uma pessoa de pele clara e jovem produz 10 mil unidades de vitamina D. Essa quantidade é 50 vezes maior do que aquela colocada à disposição do público como suplemento de vitamina D, com o título da dose recomendada. Caso fosse prescrito metade disso (5 mil) para toda a população adulta, haveria redução em 40% da ocorrência de novos casos de câncer.  

Isso representaria para a indústria farmacêutica uma perda de 40% de uma receita de trilhões de dólares”, completa. 
__

(NaturalNews)   Dr. Anne Looker and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently made vitamin D legend, Professor Hector DeLuca of University of Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_DeLuca), and certain folks at big pharma very happy with her widely-reported analysis of the vitamin D status of Americans. Using definitions of deficiency straight from the November 2010 Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Vitamin D Report – definitions that no vitamin D scientist I know agrees with, except perhaps Professor DeLuca – Dr. Looker reassured Americans their vitamin D levels were sufficient. Instead of a lower limit of 40, 30, or even 20 ng/ml, Dr. Looker and her CDC colleagues actually said any American with vitamin D levels below 12 ng/ml were “at risk of vitamin D deficiency.” That’s right, she wouldn’t say “deficient” for a person less than 12 ng/ml, all she said is they are “at risk” of being deficient! Why?

Dr. Looker falsely reassured Americans that everything is pretty much OK because around 80% of white Americans have levels higher than 20 ng/ml (although only 30% of African Americans do). I carefully read her entire paper; why didn’t I see a “CDC Action Plan for African Americans” for the 70% of Blacks with levels less than 20 ng/ml? Probably for the same reason I didn’t see any “FNB action plan for African Americans” in their recent vitamin D report.

Where did Dr. Looker get the idea that 20 ng/ml was OK? From the FNB. Where did the FNB get that idea? Professor Hector DeLuca and the vitamin D analogue scientists, that’s where. What I am about to tell you is a failure of a system, not a person. The National Academy is responsible, as scientists to the USA, to see that the processes that occur in its name are fair, above the appearance of impropriety, and free from avoidable conflicts of interest.

I have been to enough vitamin D conferences to know that about half of the scientists who attend these conferences are looking for the new patent that will secure or extend their financial fortune. They do not need America alarmed right now about the fact more than 80% of Americans are actually vitamin D deficient; no, the government might need to do something now, an action that would threaten the value of something that I have just learned about: an imminent river of new vitamin D knockoff commercial patents.

Vitamin D knockoff scientists want the government to say that 20 ng/ml is fine, at least until all the phase 2 and phase 3 FDA trials are finished on their newly patented vitamin D “analogue” drugs. In a few years it won’t matter because dozens of knockoff analogues will have been approved for treating vitamin D deficiency, yes prescription-only vitamin D knockoff drugs to treat vitamin D deficiency, instead of vitamin D, I kid you not. After these scientists get their analogues past the FDA, I predict the same scientists will change their tune and start crying for 40 ng/ml as the desirable lower limit, ensuring a vast market for their knockoffs.

The creation of vitamin D knockoff patent prescription-only drugs goes something like this: take the cholecalciferol or 25-hydroxy-cholecalciferol molecule, change its structure enough – without changing its actions – and Ola, you can patent it. It must be structurally different enough from natural cholecalciferol to be a unique drug but it must retain its vitamin D efficacy.

Ergocalciferol (Drisdol) – the only prescription drug available to treat vitamin D deficiency in the USA – is an example of an analogue, although the path to its discovery and its patent was quite different. The patent on ergocalciferol made the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Chemistry the richest chemistry department in the world. In some countries, ergocalciferol is still the only vitamin D available. For a detailed discussion of how these patents put the National Academies in a very difficult position, read the following blog: Conflict of Interest at National Academy of Science? (http://pandemicsurvivor.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/conflict-of-interest…)

As I write this, I understand additional vitamin D patent applications are being prepared (I actually know of one application by a member of the recent FNB committee member). These analogue scientists need time; the nutrient, vitamin D, needs to take a back seat for a while. Vitamin D was getting too hot, too many good things being said about it, and too many press stories about too many Americans being deficient. The analogue scientists want a big market when they finish with the FDA.

Anyway, after you have your new vitamin D molecule and your patent, you approach the FDA, who will require that you do randomized controlled trials, pitting your new vitamin D analogue drug against . . . what? Vitamin D, right? No: placebo. That’s right, placebo. As I understand the process, and I hope I am wrong, the vitamin D knockoffs only have to prove they are better than placebo, which, if they keep their efficacy, will be a cinch.

I even know of a patent application for a drug to treat vitamin D deficiency by inhibiting the 24-hydroxylase (the enzyme that gets rid of vitamin D in the body). If you inhibit the 24-hydroxylase, you will raise 25(OH)D levels and thus treat vitamin D deficiency; this is what big pharma is up to (I kid you not). Can you imagine taking a drug that interferes with a natural enzyme that metabolizes vitamin D in order to increase the amount of vitamin D in your blood, instead of just taking vitamin D? Is this the best that American medicine can do?

Very few people seem to know that the recent FNB committee had an unusual guest, an overseer, an official vitamin D advisor, Professor Hector DeLuca (http://host.madison.com/news/article_1b2e3719-0a5f-57d8-b87d-ba89b38d…), one of the true giants in the field of vitamin D, both academically and financially. Talk about mother-load analogue patents, he wrote the book. He has created so many activated vitamin D knockoffs that he named one after himself, “Hectorol.”

Another fact often gets lost; Dr. DeLuca is the only member of the vitamin D community who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, an extremely difficult membership to achieve, a shadowy process requiring inside advocates and secret votes. I’m told, but could not confirm by calling the National Academies, that blackballing is still used; if so, one negative vote and, “I’m sorry Dr. Holick,” “I’m sorry Dr. Heaney,” and “I’m sorry Dr. Norman.”

Anyway, Professor DeLuca and his Department of Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin are experts in making knockoff analogue vitamin D drugs. To be fair, his analogues of activated vitamin D have saved thousands of lives, mainly patients with kidney failure, although activated vitamin D itself works in kidney failure. If the new analogues of cholecalciferol and 25-hydroxy-vitamin D effectively treat vitamin D deficiency, they too will save millions of lives. However, there is just a much easier and cost effective way of treating vitamin D deficiency: plain old, cheap old, nutrient old, vitamin D.

As far as the recent FNB report on vitamin D, can you visualize all the scientists on the FNB hard at work, under the watchful eye of their “Special Advisor,” National Academy of Sciences member, Professor Hector DeLuca. I would venture a guess that more than one member of the FNB vitamin D panel dreamt about being in the National Academy himself or herself one day. Then they pondered which lower limit to vote for, the 40 ng/ml opined by most vitamin D scientists or the 20 ng/ml opined by “Special Advisor” DeLuca. Let us see, what will get me into the National Academy of Sciences the quickest?

I can’t really complain. First, this is America and I suspect the quickest way to treat the massive vitamin D deficiency pandemic is going to be through private industry, like it or not. Second, it is possible one of the vitamin D knockoff drugs will actually work better than vitamin D; “possible” I said. Third, I get royalties on my own brand of vitamin D so I have my own conflicts of interest. Fourth, before you get too high on your horse about Dr. DeLuca, ask yourself how many lives have you saved in your lifetime? He discovered activated vitamin D, trained dozens of the top vitamin D researchers, and saved thousands of lives.

Also, I have no way of knowing how exceptional was the FNB’s decision to make secret the critiques of the 12 top vitamin D experts, experts who were asked to review the FNB’s work. Does the FNB invoke such secrecy frequently? When did it do so last? Did the final FNB report change, based on the opinions of the 12 vitamin D experts, or did the FNB Board (most who admit to not being vitamin D experts) simply comply with Professor DeLuca’s judgment?

If the final FNB report did change, what did the report look like before the vitamin D experts’ opinions were weighed? I understand at least one vitamin D expert charged the FNB with racism for its failure to consider the vitamin D plight of African Americans. Is that true? Most members of the Vitamin D Council would like to read all 12 critiques by the 12 top vitamin D experts in the world but – unlike Professor DeLuca or the vitamin D-knockoff pharmaceutical companies – we don’t have the money to legally fight the FNB’s proclamation that the 12 expert critiques by the top vitamin D experts in the world are – and will remain – secret, beyond the reach of Federal Freedom of Information Laws.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db59.htm
http://pandemicsurvivor.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/conflict-of-interest…
http://host.madison.com/news/article_1b2e3719-0a5f-57d8-b87d-ba89b38d…

About the author:
John Cannell MD is Founder and Executive Director of the Vitamin D Council, a nonprofit working to end the world-wide epidemic of vitamin D deficiency.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032202_vitamin_D_deficiency_disease.html#ixzz2I4ZIIpwH

%d blogueiros gostam disto: