It's difficult to believe that these conclusions could be made based on experimentation with so many different uncontrolled variables.
Conclusion: Study is USELESS
I believe the vitamin D study was useless also. The main problem with the study is that the supplement dosage was probably too low to raise Vitamin D to a normal level. The study was funded by NIH a few years ago. When the study parameters were approved everybody believed that the 400 IU recommendation was adequate. Now there is huge doubt about 400 IU's adequacy coupled with a study that proved inadequate to prove its objectives.
A lot of money down the tubes, but why? I doubt that Pharma intentionally lobbied for test parameters that would have invalidated this study. This study seems to be well covered by good intentions. I don't have rosy glasses on. I have seen some vitamin studies that do seem designed to prove vitamins ineffective, but not in this case. And even in those cases it is a huge error to jump to the conclusion that bad Pharma has struck. A case must be made with facts, names, and dates.
I am going to be ambivalent here because I too have a "tin foil" hat. The prime motive for Pharma is max profit. And to assume that max profit and good healthcare is not a contradiction is too much. Challenging the contradiction is not an attack on all of the good people working for pharma. It is an attack on a few in upper management. The great majority of people who work for Pharma are people of high standards who do excellent, accurate, ethical work and deserve their good reputations.
But health care costs are going up, and health care rankings are going down. Something is wrong. Good intentions don't count. Good plans with clear objectives and good management seem necessary.
Yeah, I dont think the study was designed to fail. The outcome showed no change in risk of cancer when taking 400iu's
The study also checked blood levels and it showed that 400iu's did not change blood levels.
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"
I disagree the study was useless, I think something useful could have come from this. Like the fact that 400ius was not
enough to change blood levels and not enough to change risk. This is important. Alot of people probably have heard that vitamin
d was worth taking and they went out and just bought 400iu's and started taking it thinking that was sufficient. I think that
further education is necessary in people understanding that blood levels are the important number, not the amount you
take. The publics mindset towards vitamins is that there is a certain amount you should take of each one. That is not the
case with vitamin d as you know. Heck for all we know the supplement used in this case might not have contained 400iu's
or was not absorbed because it was combined in a tablet of calcium which probably didnt even get broken down. This
was the perfect study to use to educate the public of these issues and give that final push to bring that understanding
into the public, but no it was completely twisted and did serious damage to the publics understanding and confidence.
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.
Perhaps I just answered my own question.