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

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:


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

Deficiência de Vitamina D e Risco de Doença Cardiovascular: Um Fator Comum, Importante e Fácil de Tratar

Español: Suplemento de Vitamina E

Español: Suplemento de Vitamina E (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 Assista ao vídeo do Programa Sem Censura sobre Vitamina D:



” Apesar do fato desta pandemia mundial geralmente não ser reconhecida e tratada, a suplementação de Vitamina D é simples, segura e de baixo custo. O acompanhamento sérico e a correção na sua deficiência é indicado para a otimização do sistema osteomuscular e da saúde geral, melhorando a qualidade de vida dos indivíduos (LEE et al., 2008).”  

Devido ao estilo de vida e às culturas modernas, a humanidade produz menos vitamina D cutânea. Isso se deve a múltiplos fatores, como manter-se em lugares cada vez mais fechados, diminuindo a exposição solar e fazendo uso de protetores solares bloqueando parte da irradiação. A obesidade assim como a idade avançada também contribui para este fator, provavelmente devido a uma diminuição da biodisponibilidade da vitamina, em indivíduos com excesso de tecido adiposo, e devido a uma menor absorção tecidual em idosos (uma pessoa de 70 anos produz 75% menos vitamina D3 do que uma pessoa de 20 anos).  Diversos estudos que analisaram a quantidade de calcitriol sanguineo e verificaram que indivíduos que tinham baixa ingestão desta vitamina apresentaram: infarto do miocárdio (SGRAGG et al, 1997), acidente vascular cerebral (POOLE et al, 2006), insuficiência cardíaca (ZITTERMANN A., 2006), diabetes e doença arterial periférica (CIGOLINIigolini et al, 2006). “


Saúde & Qualidade de Vida – Patologia & Nutrição

A deficiência de vitamina D é uma condição altamente prevalente, estando presente em cerca de 30% a 50% da população em geral. Muitos estudos associam a vitamina D à saúde dos ossos, e sabe-se que sua deficiência está relacionada à osteomalácia (defeito na mineralização dos ossos) em crianças e osteoporose em adultos. Porém, estudos epidemiológicos atuais têm demonstrado que sua deficiência não está relacionada apenas à saúde dos ossos, mas também as doenças cardiovasculares. Isso ocorre porque os receptores da vitamina D estão presentes em vários tipos de células do corpo e, diretamente ou indiretamente, regulam mais de 200 genes, sendo que sua deficiência ativa o sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona e pode predispor à hipertensão arterial e hipertrofia ventricular esquerda. Além disso, essa deficiência provoca um aumento do hormônio paratireóide (PTH), o que aumenta a resistência à insulina, que está associada com o diabetes, a hipertensão, a inflamação e ao aumento de risco cardiovascular (LEE et al., 2008).

Existem duas maneiras de se obter a Vitamina D: uma é a forma D² (ergocalciferol), obtida através de suplementos e alimentos fortificados, e outra na forma D³ (colecalciferol), obtida através dos raios ultravioleta B e sintetizada pela epiderme humana ou consumida principalmente na forma de óleo de peixe, alimentos fortificados ou suplementos. O colecalciferol é transformado pela ação dos raios solares a partir da provitamina D3 (7-deidrocalciferol) encontrada na pele humana. Ambas as formas D2 e D3 são hidroxiladas no fígado e rins a 25-hidroxicalciferol e subsequentemente à forma biologicamente activa, o 1,25-di-hidroxicalciferol (calcitriol) (LEE et al., 2008).

O excesso de exposição ao sol não causa toxicidade dessa vitamina, porém o mesmo não ocorre quando há altas doses de ingestão (LEE et al., 2008).

Estudos indicam que a rápida evolução da deficiência de vitamina D é muito mais prevalente do que o esperado, prevalência essa que aumenta em altas latitudes. Além disso, grupos étnicos com peles mais escuras exigem proporcionalmente mais exposição solar para sintetizar quantidades equivalentes de vitamina D comparadas as pessoas de peles claras (LEE et al., 2008).

Devido ao estilo de vida e às culturas modernas, a humanidade produz menos vitamina D cutânea. Isso se deve a múltiplos fatores, como manter-se em lugares cada vez mais fechados, diminuindo a exposição solar e fazendo uso de protetores solares bloqueando parte da irradiação. A obesidade assim como a idade avançada também contribui para este fator, provavelmente devido a uma diminuição da biodisponibilidade da vitamina, em indivíduos com excesso de tecido adiposo, e devido a uma menor absorção tecidual em idosos (uma pessoa de 70 anos produz 75% menos vitamina D3 do que uma pessoa de 20 anos). (LEE et al., 2008):

Diversos estudos que analisaram a quantidade de calcitriol sanguineo e verificaram que indivíduos que tinham baixa ingestão desta vitamina apresentaram: infarto do miocárdio (SGRAGG et al, 1997), acidente vascular cerebral (POOLE et al, 2006), insuficiência cardíaca (ZITTERMANN A., 2006), diabetes e doença arterial periférica (CIGOLINIigolini et al, 2006).
Recentemente, O National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) estudou a relação entre os fatores de risco cardiovascular e os níveis de 25-hidroxicalciferol em 15.088 indivíduos e verificou que tais variáveis foram inversamente associados a hipertensão, diabetes mellitus, hipertrigliceridemia e obesidade (MARTINS et al., 2007). Outros estudos transversais têm confirmado a relação entre deficiência de vitamina D e a prevalência de hipertensão e diabetes (SCRAGG et al., 2004; SCRAGG et al., 2007,). Além disso, a deficiência desta vitamina predispõe à resistência à insulina, disfunção das células beta pancreáticas e a síndrome metabólica (CHIU et al., 2004; RIACHY et al., 2006).

Outro estudo relatou que uma ingestão diária de 800 UI de vitamina D, em comparação com uma ingestão diária de 400 UI de vitamina D reduziu o risco de diabetes tipo 2 em um terço da população (PITTAS et al., 2006).

Hiperparatireoidismo X risco cardiovascular

O Hiperparatiroidismo (HPT) secundário produz uma quantidade excessiva de hormônios paratireóideos em resposta a uma anormalidade fora da glândula paratireóide que, acarreta numa condição de deficiência de cálcio. O HPT secundário decorre geralmente de insuficiência renal crônica ou deficiência de vitamina D que por sua vez pode mediar muitos dos fatores de risco de doenças cardiovasculares (LEE et al., 2008).

Um nível aumentado de PTH está associado a elevação da pressão arterial (OGARD, 2005) e contratilidade miocárdica, que pode levar a hipertrofia, apoptose e fibrose tanto no ventrículo esquerdo quanto no medial do músculo liso.

A deficiência de vitamina D e/ou aumento do PTH também predispõem à calcificação das valvas cardíacas, anel mitral e do miocárdio, especialmente em pacientes com doença renal crônica moderada ou grave (ANDERSSON et al., 2004), como mostra a figura abaixo:

RAAS: Insuficiência Renal Crônica
Suplementação de Vitamina D

Sabe-se que 95% das necessidades de vitamina D são alcançadas pelaa síntese decorrente da exposição da epiderme ao sol, e apenas 5% ocorrem pela ingestão de fontes alimentares. Por isso, o governo dos Estados Unidos recomenda atualmente que a ingestão alimentar deve ser de 200 UI por dia para os indivíduos saudáveis com até 50 anos de idade, 400 UI por dia para indivíduos entre 50 e 70 anos, e 600 UI para aqueles com idade superior a 70 anos. Estudos indicam que a população adulta consome em média 230 UI de vitamina D por dia (LEE et al., 2008).

Apesar do fato desta pandemia mundial geralmente não ser reconhecida e tratada, a suplementação de Vitamina D é simples, segura e de baixo custo. O acompanhamento sérico e a correção na sua deficiência é indicado para a otimização do sistema osteomuscular e da saúde geral, melhorando a qualidade de vida dos indivíduos (LEE et al., 2008).

Leia o artigo na íntegra (pdf) no endereço abaixo:

deficiency vitamin D

Referências bibliográficas

ANDERSSON, P.; RYDBERG, E.; WILLENHEIMER, R. Primary hyperparathyroidism and heart disease—a review. Eur Heart J., n. 25, p. 1776–1787, 2004.

CHIU, K. C. et al. Hypovitaminosis D is associated with insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction. Am J Clin Nutr., n. 79, p. 820–825, 2004.

CIGOLINI, M. et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 concentrations and prevalence of cardiovascular disease among type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care, n. 29, p.722– 724, 2006.

LEE, J. H. et al. Vitamin D Deficiency. J Am Coll Cardiol., Kansas City, v. 52, n. 24, p. 1949-1956, dec. 2008.
PITTAS, A. G. et al. Vitamin D and calcium intake in relation to type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Care, n. 29, p. 650–656, 2006.

MARTINS, 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., n. 167, p. 1159–1165, 2007.

OGARD, C. G.Increased plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and markers of inflammation related to atherosclerosis in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Clin Endocrinol., n. 63, p. 493– 498, 2005.

POOLE, K. E. et al. Reduced vitamin D in acute stroke. Stroke, n. 37, p. 243-245, 2006.

RIACHY, R. et al. 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 protects human pancreatic islets against cytokine-induced apoptosis via down-regulation of the Fas receptor. Apoptosis, n. 11, p. 151–159, 2006.

SCRAGG, R. Myocardial infarction is inversely associated with plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels: a community-based study. Int J Epidemiol., n. 19, p. 559–563, 1990.

SCRAGG, R.; SOWERS, M.; BELL, C. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, diabetes, and ethnicity in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes Care, n. 27, p. 2813–2818, 2004.

SCRAGG, R.; SOWERS, M.; BELL, C. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, ethnicity, and blood pressure in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Hypertens., v. 20, n. 713–719, 2007.

ZITTERMANN, A. Vitamin D and disease prevention with special reference to cardiovascular disease. Prog Biophys Mol Biol., n. 92, p. 39–48, 2006.
Fonte:  http://www.rgnutri.com.br/sqv/patologias/dvd.php

%d blogueiros gostam disto: