39 replies to this topic

[niner]

ok, so instead of the media reporting. "400ius is insufficient to raise blood levels and that 400iu's is insufficient to change cancer risk" They instead claimed "Vitamin D ineffective for preventing cancer" Then they went on to further suggest that this study proves that vitamin d doesnt work for cancer and this study proves that previous studies that showed otherwise were wrong because this study was big and must be more accurate and thus previous studies should be ignored.

Bottom line, the public walks away thinking "vitamin d doesnt work, so no sense in taking it"
[...]
Now why and who is responsible for doing this and destroying the message this study showed ?

Was it completely the medias fault with no intervention from big pharma ? or was it big pharma ? If it was, why ? ok and here is the point I was trying to make before. If big pharma did this, did they actually do it to try to protect
breast cancer profit ? Could they be that diabolical ? I am not saying either way, it could be true.

So Niner, I am just asking here if this is the case for their motive.
I am not stating that this is the reason. Do you understand now ?

Is it that the media is so used to thinking vitamins dont work, that they just came to that
conclusion on their own to make this story fit with their core beliefs about vitamins ?

Maybe they have been trained by big pharma just like doctors are trained to believe
vitamins dont work. Ask any doctor, they are taught this in school and will gladly
tell it to your face if asked.

You see if you influence someones core beliefs about something then they carry
out your agenda for you on their own. So big pharma doesnt even have to have its
hand in the spin of this story directly, they just train people what to believe and then
they do it on their own.

Ortcloud, you are treating the media as though they are a monolith, like one thing. I've asked twice now, in posts #2, and 15, where was this article reported? THAT's how we find out who's responsible. Who wrote it? How were they trained? Who's the editor? What is the main source of revenue for that media outlet?

To ask a question is to suggest that it might be true. It is therefore a form of accusation. You don't get off the hook by putting a question mark at the end. You are suggesting that the pharmaceutical industry (which is also not a monolith) actively conspired to maintain a high rate of breast cancer in order to profit from it. That is an incredibly heinous crime; honestly, it boggles my mind that you could believe such a thing. To say that a belief like that is tinfoil hattish is putting it mildly. The influence the pharmaceutical industry wields is much more along the lines of what fredrickson talked about upthread.

The practice of medicine we have today has come about as a result of the free enterprise system. Drug companies can't make money from vitamins and supplements, so they ignore them. No one has the money to run the clinical trials needed to show that they work. I would argue that we the people should be funding those trials for our own benefit, and pay for it with tax dollars. Of course I would be derided as a Collectivist, Socialist, or Marxist for holding such anti-American views. So there you go. Maybe we get the system of medicine that we deserve.

Edited by niner, 19 November 2008 - 04:18 AM.

[mike250]

ok, so instead of the media reporting. "400ius is insufficient to raise blood levels and that 400iu's is insufficient to change cancer risk" They instead claimed "Vitamin D ineffective for preventing cancer" Then they went on to further suggest that this study proves that vitamin d doesnt work for cancer and this study proves that previous studies that showed otherwise were wrong because this study was big and must be more accurate and thus previous studies should be ignored.

Bottom line, the public walks away thinking "vitamin d doesnt work, so no sense in taking it"
[...]
Now why and who is responsible for doing this and destroying the message this study showed ?

Was it completely the medias fault with no intervention from big pharma ? or was it big pharma ? If it was, why ? ok and here is the point I was trying to make before. If big pharma did this, did they actually do it to try to protect
breast cancer profit ? Could they be that diabolical ? I am not saying either way, it could be true.

So Niner, I am just asking here if this is the case for their motive.
I am not stating that this is the reason. Do you understand now ?

Is it that the media is so used to thinking vitamins dont work, that they just came to that
conclusion on their own to make this story fit with their core beliefs about vitamins ?

Maybe they have been trained by big pharma just like doctors are trained to believe
vitamins dont work. Ask any doctor, they are taught this in school and will gladly
tell it to your face if asked.

You see if you influence someones core beliefs about something then they carry
out your agenda for you on their own. So big pharma doesnt even have to have its
hand in the spin of this story directly, they just train people what to believe and then
they do it on their own.

Ortcloud, you are treating the media as though they are a monolith, like one thing. I've asked twice now, in posts #2, and 15, where was this article reported? THAT's how we find out who's responsible. Who wrote it? How were they trained? Who's the editor? What is the main source of revenue for that media outlet?

To ask a question is to suggest that it might be true. It is therefore a form of accusation. You don't get off the hook by putting a question mark at the end. You are suggesting that the pharmaceutical industry (which is also not a monolith) actively conspired to maintain a high rate of breast cancer in order to profit from it. That is an incredibly heinous crime; honestly, it boggles my mind that you could believe such a thing. To say that a belief like that is tinfoil hattish is putting it mildly. The influence the pharmaceutical industry wields is much more along the lines of what fredrickson talked about upthread.

The practice of medicine we have today has come about as a result of the free enterprise system. Drug companies can't make money from vitamins and supplements, so they ignore them. No one has the money to run the clinical trials needed to show that they work. I would argue that we the people should be funding those trials for our own benefit, and pay for it with tax dollars. Of course I would be derided as a Collectivist, Socialist, or Marxist for holding such anti-American views. So there you go. Maybe we get the system of medicine that we deserve.

except that our tax system needs reform and the bureaucracy behind the IRS is bloated. Otherwise you suggestion is not a bad idea. Oh and you still are a collectivist

Edited by mike250, 19 November 2008 - 07:00 AM.

[stephen_b]

I just stumbled upon this tidbit from May's vitamin D council newsletter:

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. ... As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

He cites PMID 17218096:

optimal nutritional vitamin D status appeared to occur when molar ratios of circulating vitamin D(3) and 25(OH)D exceeded 0.3; at this point, the V(max) of the 25-hydroxylase appeared to be achieved. This was achieved when circulating 25(OH)D exceeded 100 nmol. We hypothesize that as humans live today, the 25-hydroxylase operates well below its V(max) because of chronic substrate deficiency, namely vitamin D(3). When humans are sun (or dietary) replete, the vitamin D endocrine system will function in a fashion as do these other steroid synthetic pathways, not limited by substrate. Thus, the relationship between circulating vitamin D and 25(OH)D may represent what "normal" vitamin D status should be.

Stephen

[ortcloud]

Ortcloud, you are treating the media as though they are a monolith, like one thing. I've asked twice now, in posts #2, and 15, where was this article reported? THAT's how we find out who's responsible. Who wrote it? How were they trained? Who's the editor? What is the main source of revenue for that media outlet?

To ask a question is to suggest that it might be true. It is therefore a form of accusation. You don't get off the hook by putting a question mark at the end. You are suggesting that the pharmaceutical industry (which is also not a monolith) actively conspired to maintain a high rate of breast cancer in order to profit from it. That is an incredibly heinous crime; honestly, it boggles my mind that you could believe such a thing. To say that a belief like that is tinfoil hattish is putting it mildly. The influence the pharmaceutical industry wields is much more along the lines of what fredrickson talked about upthread.

The practice of medicine we have today has come about as a result of the free enterprise system. Drug companies can't make money from vitamins and supplements, so they ignore them. No one has the money to run the clinical trials needed to show that they work. I would argue that we the people should be funding those trials for our own benefit, and pay for it with tax dollars. Of course I would be derided as a Collectivist, Socialist, or Marxist for holding such anti-American views. So there you go. Maybe we get the system of medicine that we deserve.

I did not mean to ignore your requests, I didnt see you ask about the media references. you can google it here and
see all the headlines. Or maybe I will try to post them here.

http://news.google.c...&ncl=1269328145


I understand the media isnt a monolith but why are all of these headlines trying to deliver the same message?



Calcium, Vitamin D Won't Prevent Breast Cancer
U.S. News & World Report, DC - Nov 11, 2008
By Serena Gordon TUESDAY, Nov. 11 (HealthDay News) -- Although calcium and vitamin D may keep your bones strong, these vital nutrients don't appear to help ...

Vitamin D Does Not Prevent Breast Cancer
Current World News, Canada - Nov 12, 2008
A study has provided more evidence showing that vitamin supplementation does not reduce a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. ...

Study Shows Vitamin D Has No Impact On Breast Cancer Risk
dBTechno, MA - Nov 12, 2008
Boston (dbTechno) - According to a new study, vitamin D has no impact at all on your risk of developing breast cancer. In the past, there were many beliefs ...

Vitamin D Found To Not Prevent Breast Cancer
E Canada Now, Canada - Nov 12, 2008
Washington (ECN) - A new study has found that vitamin D does not prevent breast cancer. The study was led by Dr. Rowan Chlebowski from the Los Angeles ...

Calcium, Vitamin D Don’t Prevent Breast Cancer
TopNews, India - Nov 12, 2008
A large clinical trial has found that calcium and vitamin D supplements don’t help postmenopausal women lower their risk of breast cancer. ...

Study: Vitamin D won't lower breast cancer risk
Contra Costa Times, CA - Nov 11, 2008
By Melissa Evans, Staff Writer Despite much-hyped news about the benefits of vitamin D, a wide-reaching study released Tuesday shows the so-called "sunshine ...

Vitamin D and Calcium: No Breast Cancer Benefit
Ivanhoe, FL - Nov 11, 2008
(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Calcium and vitamin D supplements do not protect postmenopausal women from breast cancer, a new study reveals. ...

Taking Vitamin D Doesn’t Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer
13WHAM-TV, NY - Nov 11, 2008
A new study on vitamin D found that women who take it have the same risk of developing breast as those taking a placebo. More than 36000 women taking daily ...

Calcium and vitamin D use does not prevent invasive breast cancer
Curetoday.com (press release), TX - Nov 11, 2008
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Use of calcium and vitamin D supplements does not reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women, ...

Vitamin D Plus Calcium Does Not Cut Breast Cancer Risk
MedPage Today, NJ - Nov 11, 2008

[biknut]

On vitamin d3 dose topic:

http://www.nutraingr...itamin-D-levels

This is a pretty interesting link. I've been taking 2000IU a day till my doctor told me that much D might hurt my liver, so I cut back a little. I don't think he knows much about nutrition.

[missminni]

Was it completely the medias fault with no intervention from big pharma ?
or was it big pharma ? If it was, why ? ok and here is the point I was trying
to make before. If big pharma did this, did they actually do it to try to protect
breast cancer profit ? Could they be that diabolical ? I am not saying either
way, it could be true.

So Niner, I am just asking here if this is the case for their motive.
I am not stating that this is the reason. Do you understand now ?

Is it that the media is so used to thinking vitamins dont work, that they just came to that
conclusion on their own to make this story fit with their core beliefs about vitamins ?

Maybe they have been trained by big pharma just like doctors are trained to believe
vitamins dont work. Ask any doctor, they are taught this in school and will gladly
tell it to your face if asked.

You see if you influence someones core beliefs about something then they carry
out your agenda for you on their own. So big pharma doesnt even have to have its
hand in the spin of this story directly, they just train people what to believe and then
they do it on their own.

excellent post... never underestimate the greed and pervasiveness of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. i don't think i am overstating the problem when i say if you had to choose a single entity responsible for the poor health in the us (and most of the rest of the world), it would be the dominance of big pharma in western healthcare systems.

from one who is writing a doctoral dissertation on vitamin e, and is as familiar with this impressive literature as is possible, i know that there is a strong bias against all vitamins and non-drug approaches to preventing disease in the medical community. the number of times i have heard "duh... but vitamin e increases mortality!" (referring to a poorly designed meta-analysis). this despite the fact that my references cited list has over 100 studies with positive results, they harp on a single, politically motivated study that could still find only a tiny increaese in mortality with hand-picked studies. this is the overwhelming attitude in academic research. why?

1.) the vast majority of physicians are nutrition illiterate. this is a direct product of pharma-dominated allopathic medical training. with less than 25% of us medical schools requiring a very basic course in nutrition and when less than 6% of medical students taking a nutrition elective, it should come as no surprise that most physicians know nothing about the role of nutrition in preventing disease. most posters on this board will be more knowledgable than your typical physician. as such, expect them to prescribe the pharmacological interventions on which they were trained to their patients over a nutrient-dense diet about which they are clueless. this "wait until it's too late" symptom-dominated approach is at the heart of the obesity epidemic, and consequently, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, i.e. the chronic diseases plaguing industrialized countries.

2.) a second major reason is the influence of big pharma on medical journals. even if you do have a saavy physician, he will generally rely upon medical journals for his knowledge (as he should). however, when big pharma advertising is such a big component of the income (check the journals for the latest crestor, etc. adds!), that creates a bias in terms of what is considered publishable.

3.) speaking of bias, the conflict of interest at the fda trumps all in my opinion. the fact that the fda accepts such huge financial contributions from the industry it is supposed to regulate is a conflict of interest like no other! is anyone surprised the fda has it out for nutritional supplements, given the fact that economic interests of it's financial lifeline (big pharma) are threatened! as a result, we have the constant barrage of poorly designed studies of vitamins that are destined to fail. anyone in the field like i am realizes this studies have fatal design flaws that seem to deliberately create a situation where positive results are impossible.

i should establish clearly that i was not always anti-pharmaceutical industry. in fact, i entered my phd program with an interest in pharmacoepidemiology and i could still make a TON of money in such a field if i chose to enter it after i graduate. the problem is, i have morals and see the situation clearly. the pharmaceutical industry has way too much influence at a variety of levels - medical training, lavish gifts to decision makers, the largest lobbying force in congress. and until this influence is decreased, expect the world to become more disease-ridden and dependent upon their drugs.

Thanks for this post. It is so refreshing to see someone with your background telling it like it is. There's a line from a Chris Rock performance from a few years ago that sums it up quite succinctly...."The money's in the medicine, not the cure"

[niner]

I understand the media isnt a monolith but why are all of these headlines trying to deliver the same message?

I think the answer was given by Michael in post #5:

To be fair, that's the simple, headline version of the findings: the women took vitamin D supplements, at what's still considered the standard dose, and nothing happened.

The news media is just reporting what happened. It was a huge study, so it had some statistical power. It's unfortunate that we get a misleading headline, but maybe that should be blamed on the study. I don't have time to read all the news reports to figure out how many of them had more useful information buried inside, like maybe "the dose may have been too low", but it wouldn't surprise me if some of them did. Maybe the whole thing boils down to the study having been started at a time when we didn't know the dosage requirements for vitamin D. It's only been relatively recently that the current higher dose thinking has started to gain widespread currency, even among people like us. Two years ago I was taking 400 IU of dry vitamin D3 as part of my multi, and that was it. Once they spent millions on the study, they couldn't exactly say "oops, we fucked up" and not publish the results. It's a sorry state of affairs. Maybe someone will run a similar study with an adequate dose. I just hope that such a study won't have trouble getting funded because "everyone knows that vitamin D doesn't work". Even if it gets funded, it will take many years to set up, gather data, analyze, and publish. The whole thing is a huge setback for public health. It sucks.

[missminni]

I understand the media isnt a monolith but why are all of these headlines trying to deliver the same message?

I think the answer was given by Michael in post #5:

To be fair, that's the simple, headline version of the findings: the women took vitamin D supplements, at what's still considered the standard dose, and nothing happened.

The news media is just reporting what happened. It was a huge study, so it had some statistical power. It's unfortunate that we get a misleading headline, but maybe that should be blamed on the study. I don't have time to read all the news reports to figure out how many of them had more useful information buried inside, like maybe "the dose may have been too low", but it wouldn't surprise me if some of them did. Maybe the whole thing boils down to the study having been started at a time when we didn't know the dosage requirements for vitamin D. It's only been relatively recently that the current higher dose thinking has started to gain widespread currency, even among people like us. Two years ago I was taking 400 IU of dry vitamin D3 as part of my multi, and that was it. Once they spent millions on the study, they couldn't exactly say "oops, we fucked up" and not publish the results. It's a sorry state of affairs. Maybe someone will run a similar study with an adequate dose. I just hope that such a study won't have trouble getting funded because "everyone knows that vitamin D doesn't work". Even if it gets funded, it will take many years to set up, gather data, analyze, and publish. The whole thing is a huge setback for public health. It sucks.

This is the problem in a nutshell. Yes they could have published the study and said however at higher doses it does
help. That would alert people who were only taking 400 IU that they should take more. But they didn't. I don't think they are so ignorant they didn't know. They manipulate results to suit their agenda.

[113H]

I heard that breast cancer is likely caused by bras believe it or not. Then I've also heard that antipersperants were the culprit. They stated that bras do something to the bloodflow in the microvasculature in the breast tissue, leading to increased anaerobic activity setting the stage for pre-cancerous growths. But who really knows?

Edited by 113H, 04 January 2009 - 09:07 AM.

[niner]

I heard that breast cancer is likely caused by bras believe it or not. Then I've also heard that antipersperants were the culprit. They stated that bras do something to the bloodflow in the microvasculature in the breast tissue, leading to increased anaerobic activity setting the stage for pre-cancerous growths. But who really knows?

These sound like very untested hypotheses. The question to ask is "what is the evidence that bras or antiperspirants cause cancer?" I suspect there is little or no evidence, but I'd be interested if there was any.