More shots fired in war on vitamin D

Vitamin D Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Risks in More Than 83 000 Individuals in 21 Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-analysis

Taking vitamin D supplements may not reduce cardiovascular disease risk, a meta-analysis of randomized trials found.

Vitamin D supplementation didn’t reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo (P=0.85), reported Mahmoud Barbarawi, MD, of the Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Michigan, and colleagues in JAMA Cardiology.

Nor were significant differences found between the two arms for all-cause mortality, stroke, cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, or myocardial infarction.

The findings follow on the heels of the randomized D2d study showing no benefit from vitamin D for prevention of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals.

In cardiovascular disease prevention, observational studies have linked low serum vitamin D to higher risk but the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said there’s too little data to support its use for CVD prevention among people without known deficiency.

“The popularity of vitamin D supplementation is at least partly owing to the misinterpretation of impressive epidemiologic associations between vitamin D status and a breadth of health metrics, leading to a potentially flawed assumption of causality,” noted Arshed Quyyumi, MD, FRCP, and Ibhar Al Mheid, MD, both of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, in an accompanying editorial….

Barbarawi’s group assessed 21 randomized clinical trials that reported cardiovascular outcomes with vitamin D supplementation of at least 1 year duration. The trials together included 41,622 patients who received a placebo and 41,669 patients who took vitamin D supplements. Trial participants were 74.4% female and had a mean age of 65.8 years….

The study was supported by BASF, Pronova BioPharma, and Pharmavite.

D requirements are a function of skin pigmentation (black people need more D supplementation to obtain the same serum level of D) but oddly there seems to be no breakdown by skin color.    That’s because medical research isn’t funded by racists (or eugenicists).  It’s funded by corporate “liberals”.  You know, the kind of  liberals who faked autism rates among MMR-injected black boys at the CDC,  or continue to plead ignorance about the human consequences of injecting aluminum and human DNA  into young children, or the equally dire human consequences of destroying the dollar after gutting and exporting our industrial infrastructure, which after all are important steps toward  achieving their final solution to the “global warming” problem:  Depopulation.    When the predictable disasters do happen, they need only shrug their shoulders and plead ignorance or statistical anomalies in their very learned studies and complicated computer models and still retain some semblance of credibility, at least among their clueless audience.   Fabians require infinite gullibility among the peasants, not a problem if they work with the professionals in the MSM.

The mean age, gender and implicitly medicalized demographic of the test subjects practically guarantees that many of them are already on D supplementation for treatment or prevention of osteoporosis.   There goes your random selection.  If the null hypothesis is that D has no effect on CV events, this a poor choice of subjects.

I note that nowhere in the PR blurbs or the abstract did they bother to mention the actual dosages of D used in the 21 studies, despite other impressive sounding numbers like relative risks and confidence intervals.     This crucial omission renders the PR  completely meaningless.  If history is any guide, the average dose is probably somewhere between 1000 and 4000 IU, hardly comparable to the dose of sunlight experienced by humans during 99+% of our evolutionary history.  This is incomplete science masquerading as a definitive statement, asking an irrelevant question for an obvious purpose (follow the money), but pending further information it’s hard to know just how irrelevant this study actually is.  Unfortunately I don’t have access to the full text.

BTW: For some additional humor, read the medpage study linked above about vit D and type 2 diabetes:

“The authors intentionally did not target patients with vitamin D deficiencies because in prior studies the intervention worked regardless of baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, said co-author Myrlene Staten, MD, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.”

In other words, they avoided asking the question they purport to answer.    In the subgroup which WAS deficient:

Wexler also allowed that patients with vitamin D deficiency might be expected to see the most benefit from supplementation.  Indeed, a post hoc analysis of 103 participants in the current study showed those with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels under 12 ng/mL did get significant benefit from supplementation compared to placebo (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.80).

Rarely are the conflicts of interest in medicine more glaring than in their official recommendation for D.   With the possible exception of their recommendation for routine infant male genital mutilation.

D is involved in all kids of metabolic processes, from pregnancy maintenance (see below for  a more explicitly bigoted example of medical “science”) to infection fighting to cancer prevention, which probably explains a lot about medicine’s hostility toward D.    The FDA’s RDA is a joke, a prescription for doctor visits, a form of demographic plunder.   If you’re white, then going shirtless outside for 30 minutes a day gives you about 25 times more D than the RDA. This  gives you an idea of what humans have adapted to rely on for millennia.  Of course nowdays it’s best to use toxic sunscreen ( )  if you really do need to go outdoors for some reason, such as running to your car.   You’ll need an umbrella, rain or shine.  Doctors’ orders.

I’ve been taking 10,000 IU a day for years,* and somehow I haven’t died a horrible agonizing death.   I’m not sure why, especially since I don’t go to doctors.  As in EVER, unless absolutely necessary (broken bones etc).  But when I do die, most likely as punishment for my starry eyed trust in doctors at a younger age, maybe my hard-learned skepticism of the satanic church of medicine will get me a pass into the higher realms.

In this day and age, parents are risking the wrath of CPS if they veer too far from medical dictates regarding birth, breastfeeding, circumcision, vaccination, sleep-isolation, carrying, sunlight or just plain boredom at public school.    I thought things were bad when I was a kid.  God help these innocents.

* IU’s of D are not defined in terms of human requirements, in fact they have nothing at all to do with benchmarking the nutrients contained in a normal organic diet or the normal sunlight exposure which humans have evolved with and adapted to for millennia.   In other words, they are totally arbitrary.   One has to wonder why they chose a measure which results in numbers like 10,000 units per day for a normal dose.

One IU of D is equivalent to 0.025 MICROGRAMS of D.   If they had decided to measure it in nanograms or picograms then I’d be taking 2.5 million or 2.5 trillion death-units per day and herr doktor could conclude that I’m even more of a nutcase for gulping down  such an outlandishly large number.   But it’s still only about 20 minutes in the sun for a shirtless white person no matter how else you measure it.   So, like, WTF?   What’s wrong with sunshine?

Finally, here’s a second opinion which does try to account for racial differences in vitamin D metabolism.

Nanomedical studies of the restoration of nitric oxide/peroxynitrite balance in dysfunctional endothelium by 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D3 – clinical implications for cardiovascular diseases

Vitamin D3 helps improve cardiovascular health by balancing Nitric Oxide and Peroxynitrite.

International Journal of Nanomedicine » Volume 13


Published 19 January 2018 Volume 2018

What is it about?

This study is about the correlation of Vitamin D3 and its effect on the restoration of endothelial function suffered from damage in hypertension and diabetes. Our study shows that Vitamin D3 – which is made by the body naturally when skin is exposed to the sun – can significantly restore the damage to the cardiovascular system caused by several diseases, including hypertension, diabetes and atherosclerosis. Generally, Vitamin D3 is associated with the bones. However, in recent years, in clinical settings people recognize that many patients who have a heart attack will have a deficiency of D3. It doesn’t mean that the deficiency caused the heart attack, but it increased the risk of heart attack. We showed for the first time through use of nanosensors to see why Vitamin D3 can be beneficial, especially for the function and restoration of the cardiovascular system.

Why is it important?

There is no direct method to detect in real-time release of nitric oxide and peroxynitrite in biological milieu. We have developed unique methods and systems of measurements using nanosensors, which are about 1,000 times smaller in diameter than a human hair, to track the impacts of Vitamin D3 on single endothelial cells, a vital regulatory component of the cardiovascular system. A major discovery from these studies is that vitamin D3 is a powerful stimulator of nitric oxide (NO), which is a major signaling molecule in the regulation of blood flow and the prevention of the formation of clots in the cardiovasculature. Additionally, vitamin D3 significantly reduced the level of oxidative stress in the cardiovascular system. This study is the first to identify the molecular mechanism of vitamin D3-triggered restoration of the function of damaged endothelium in the cardiovasculature….

Research Coverup of Vitamin D Scandal Continues