Efeito da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 – Covid 19 – na função gonadal masculina



Effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection upon male gonadal function: A single center-based study

Efeito da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 na função gonadal masculina: um estudo baseado em um único centro

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Download article:

Effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection upon male gonadal function: A single center-based study


Since SARS-CoV-2 infection was first identified in December 2019, it spread rapidly and a global pandemic of COVID-19 has occurred. ACE2, the receptor for entry into the target cells by SARS-CoV-2, was found to abundantly express in testes, including spermatogonia, Leydig and Sertoli cells. However, there is no clinical evidence about whether SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect male gonadal function so far. In this study, we compared the sex-related hormones between 81 reproductive-aged men with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 100 age-matched healthy men, and found that serum luteinizing hormone (LH) was significantly increased, but the ratio of testosterone (T) to LH and the ratio of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) to LH were dramatically decreased in males with COVID-19. Besides, multivariable regression analysis indicated that c-reactive protein (CRP) level was significantly associated with serum T:LH ratio in COVID-19 patients. This study provides the first direct evidence about the influence of medical condition of COVID-19 on male sex hormones, alerting more attention to gonadal function evaluation among patients recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially the reproductive-aged men.


Link da publicação:

Effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection upon male gonadal function: A single center-based study



Deficiência de Vitamina D3 e obesidade


Obesidade é  fator de risco para coronavírus mais associado à morte de jovens

A deficiência de vitamina D está associada à obesidade, pois o tecido celular subcutâneo (gordura que se localiza sob a pele) sequestra a vitamina D da circulação por ser ela uma substância solúvel em gorduras.👇🏼

Article download:

Obesity and vitamin D deficiency – a systematic review and meta-analysis – 2015

Resultado dessa revisão da literatura médica: “A deficiência de vitamina D foi associada à obesidade, independentemente da idade, latitude, pontos de corte para definir a deficiência de vitamina D e o Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano do local do estudo.”


Obesidade é  fator de risco para coronavírus mais associado à morte de jovens





“Nas salas de emergência de hotspots de vírus em todo o mundo, a equipe médica está vendo um número maior de homens do que mulheres sofrendo sintomas graves de COVID-19, com a obesidade emergindo como outro fator potencialmente agravante. Mas os especialistas ainda não sabem o porquê.”


França relata problemas cardíacos e mortes em quem usou hidroxicloroquina

A carência de vitamina D é especialmente severa e prevalente entre idosos, em particular os institucionalizados.



Article download:

Severe vitamin D deficiency in the institutionalized elderly – 2008


“Em conclusão, a maioria dos idosos institucionalizados no sul da Grécia apresentava grave deficiência de vitamina D e hiperparatireoidismo secundário, em contraste com o status bastante bom de vitamina D e falta de hiperparatireoidismo nos idosos que vivem na comunidade durante o verão. Esses achados indicam a necessidade de suplementação de vitamina D e cálcio dos idosos institucionalizados ao longo do ano.”

“…a pele envelhecida produz muito menos vitamina D do que a pele em pessoas mais jovens.”👇🏼

Article download:

Vitamin D physiology – 2006

“…a produção de vitamina D na pele diminui consideravelmente com o envelhecimento. Um estudo com radiação UV em Boston mostrou que a produção de vitamina D3 aos 80 anos é de cerca de 25% da produção aos 20 anos.”👇🏼

Article download:

Ultraviolet Irradiation Corrects Vitamin D Deficiency and Suppresses Secondary Hyperparathyroidism in the Elderly – 1998

Quase 70% dos mortos por coronavírus no Rio de Janeiro são idosos:




Papel da Vitamina D no tratamento do autismo

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

Seu filho recebe Vitamina D suficiente? Does your child get enough vitamin D?



Vitamin D is an essential nutrient that a growing child’s body needs to help absorb calcium and phosphorus, which are important for healthy bones and teeth.

Vitamin D mostly comes from summer sunlight as well as certain foods.

Not getting enough vitamin D has led to some children in the UK developing the rare bone disease rickets. Rickets was common during Victorian times but mostly disappeared in the 1940s.

Even if children get enough calcium from their diet, including through milk and yoghurt, without enough vitamin D, calcium cannot be properly absorbed.

Vitamin D also regulates cell growth, neuromuscular and immune function and reduction of inflammation.

Vitamin D from the sun

The British climate may be responsible for some vitamin D deficiency. 90% of vitamin D intake comes from exposure of the skin to sunlight. Between October and March, there’s not enough UVB radiation in autumn, winter and early spring sunlight.

The body can store up vitamin D over the summer months, but the amount of UVB radiation necessary to produce vitamin D also depends on a child’s skin colour.

Those with lighter complexions need less sun exposure than those with darker skin. Some children may have less exposure to the sun because their skin is covered for cultural reasons. Others may miss out because of having to stay indoors or in hospital due to medical conditions.

A balance is important between getting children out on the sun enough for their vitamin needs while making sure their delicate skin is protected from sun burn or over exposure.

Experts advise exposing the skin to regular, short periods of sun during the summer months, without sunscreen, which blocks UVB rays.  There is no official recommendation for time limits, but a short period unprotected in the sun can be around 10 to 15 minutes for most children. After that, the normal sun protection measures are needed. These include covering up and using sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of at least 15.

Vitamin D from food

Vitamin D occurs naturally in some foods, including oily fish and eggs, and is added to some foods such as spreads and breakfast cereal.

Breastfed babies get their vitamin D from their mother’s breast milk, so it is also important for breastfeeding women to get enough vitamin D themselves. Pregnantand breastfeeding women are advised to take a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms of vitamin D for the needs of the mother and growing baby.

Vitamin D from supplements

The Department of Health recommends supplement drops containing vitamin D for babies and children from six months to five years old.

This will give them their daily requirement of 7-8.5 micrograms of vitamin D.

Infant formula is fortified with vitamin D, so babies who have formula won’t need vitamin drops until they have less than 500ml (around a pint) of infant formula a day.
Check with your health visitor or GP if you have concerns.

If a breastfeeding mother didn’t have vitamin D supplements throughout her pregnancy, a health visitor may say the baby needs vitamin drops from one month old.

Women and children may qualify for free supplements containing vitamin D under the Healthy Start programme. Age-appropriate vitamin drops are also available from pharmacies and supermarkets

Fonte: http://www.webmd.boots.com/children/child-vitamin-d


Are you one of those who believe plain milk is enough for your child’s nutritional needs? Have you ever thought about your child’sVitamin D levels? These findings are an eye-opener

Mark ‘yes’ if these situations are relevant to your child:

1. Your child barely plays out in the sun.

2. Off late your child tends to get tired easily & seems listless at times.

3. Your child complains of pain in his joints without reason.

If your answers are predominantly ‘yes’, then this recent 11-city survey conducted by Ipsos Research will be an eye-opener for you. The purpose was to understand the level of awareness about Vitamin D among mothers – whether they considered it important enough for their child, the misconceptions about it and the harm that would befall the child if they are found to be Vitamin D deficient. The response from the 2000 mothers who were spoken to for the survey, threw up some compelling insights.

First the good news. General awareness levels among the mothers were high: most of them correctly mentioned sunlight as a source of Vitamin D. They were aware that lack of this vitamin would result in weak bones in children. The good news however, ended there!

More worrisome were several startling disclosures, viz:

-Only 50 per cent of the mothers were aware of the crucial nutritional link between calciumand Vitamin D.

-Only 14 per cent mothers felt their children were calcium-deficient. The majority of them believed the milk they were providing their children was enough to store up Vitamin D levels in the body.

-Their awareness about other sources of Vitamin D (fish, fish liver oils, egg yolk, fortified dairy and grain products) was also very low.

-They didn’t know that apart from weak bones, lack of Vitamin D also results in skin-related issues, tooth cavities and poor concentration levels.

-Majority said they give milk daily to their children and in addition also provide them fruits, milk food drinks (MFDs) and interesting home-made food. Most mothers preferred MFDs over plain milk and also felt the quantity of milk their child was consuming was sufficient for calcium absorption.

So what lessons and questions does this insightful survey throw up? For starters, there is an urgent need to shore up awareness levels among mothers because most of them feel that the source of Vitamin D is restricted largely to absorption of natural sunlight. The truth is that this vitamin can be and needs to be made available to children in many other ways as well, given the kind of lifestyles many of them lead. Mothers also need to be educated about the health hazards that calcium deficiency leads to, and the right quantity of milk that needs to be consumed everyday for calcium absorption in the body.

The findings of the survey should prompt you to stop, take note and become more aware. After all, it is awareness that leads to empowerment.

This is the first of a 10-part series that will focus on the importance of Vitamin D for children. Keep watching this space for more

A Consumer connect initiative

fonte: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/Does-your-child-get-enough-Vitamin-D/iplarticleshow/12247253.cms


Maior acesso a suplementos de vitamina D pode “eliminar casos de raquitismo” – Greater access to vitamin D supplements would ‘cut the cases of rickets’


Vitamins (Photo credit: DBduo Photography)

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) considera que a deficiência de vitamina D afeta um quarto das crianças, resultando em altas incidências de diabetes, tuberculose, esclerose múltipla e raquitismo.

According to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), vitamin D deficiency is thought to affect a quarter of children, resulting in higher incidences of diabetes, tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis and rickets.


Katy Morton, 14 December 2012, 12:15pm

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has called for vitamin D supplements to be made more widely available to children.

According to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), vitamin D deficiency is thought to affect a quarter of children, resulting in higher incidences of diabetes, tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis and rickets.

While the Government’s Healthy Start programme provides vitamins free to low-income families and at risk groups, Professor Mitch Blair, officer for health promotion at the RCPCH, has claimed that the vitamins are in short supply and uptake is low.

In light of this, the RCPCH has today (Friday) launched a campaign calling for high quality vitamin D supplements to be readily available at a low cost, something which is already happening in some countries says Prof Blair.

It follows a recommendation by the chief medical officer for England, Dame Sally Davies, in January that all women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and children aged six months to five-years-old take vitamin D supplements.

The RCPCH’s campaign also recommends an investigation into the pros and cons of further fortification of food with vitamin D, and increasing public awareness by providing clear information for parents and families on the warning signs of vitamin D deficiency and how to prevent it.

Prof Mitch Blair (pictured) said, ‘We know vitamin D deficiency is a growing problem and research reveals startling high levels of vitamin deficiency among certain groups including children.

‘It is only possible to get a fraction (10 per cent) of the recommended daily amount of vitamin D  through  food   and very little from sunlight. So getting out in the sun more or eating more oily fish isn’t going to solve the problem.

‘Lack of vitamin D is related to a plethora of serious illnesses  in children that could be prevented through relatively simple steps such as taking supplements.’

He added, ‘Equally as important is making sure that all healthcare professionals can spot the signs of vitamin D deficiency in children; aches and pains, poor growth, muscle weakness and seizures – and make sure they get appropriately treated.

The first stage of the RCPCH campaign will see a series of leaflets for paediatricians and other healthcare professionals highlighting the signs of vitamin D deficiency, which will be published in the spring.

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is currently looking into proposals for further vitamin D fortification of food and drink, which already happens in countries including the United States, Canada and Finland.

Diversos depoimentos médicos – Vitamin D prevents breast cancer


(NaturalNews) You’ve heard the good news about vitamin D for years: It’s a “miracle” medicine that reduces cancer rates by 77% according to previous research


(http://www.naturalnews.com/021892_cancer_Vitamin_D_cancer_industry.ht…). It also happens to be a powerful anti-cancer medicine that can both prevent and help reverse breast cancer.

Yet, bewilderingly, the cancer industry still refuses to teach women about vitamin D. Ever wonder why?

Today, we bring you a compilation of expert quotations on vitamin D and breast cancer, cited from some of the most authoritative books and authors in the world. Feel free to share what you learn here with others who may also be suffering from breast cancer.

Vitamin D and breast cancer

Sunlight triggers the formation of vitamin D in the skin, which can be activated in the liver and kidneys into a hormone with great activity. This activated form of vitamin D causes “cellular differentiation” – essentially the opposite of cancer. The following evidence indicates that vitamin D might have a protective role against breast cancer: Synthetic vitamin D-like molecules have prevented the equivalent of breast cancer in animals.
– The Natural Pharmacy: Complete A-Z Reference to Natural Treatments for Common Health Conditions by Alan R. Gaby, M.D., Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., Forrest Batz, Pharm.D. Rick Chester, RPh., N.D., DipLAc. George Constantine, R.Ph., Ph.D. Linnea D. Thompson, Pharm.D., N.D.

Two equally effective sources of vitamin D in humans are derived from plant ergosterol, which is converted to ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) by the action of sunlight on the skin. The body uses vitamin D3 for normal immune system function, to control cellular growth, and to absorb calcium from the digestive tract. Vitamin D3 can inhibit the growth of malignant melanoma, breast cancer, leukemia, and mammary tumors in laboratory animals. Vitamin D3 can also inhibit angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels that permit the spread of cancer cells through the body.
– Permanent Remissions by Robert Hass, M.S.

There’s surprising new evidence that older women who skimp on foods rich in vitamin D are more likely to develop breast cancer, according to Frank Garland, Ph.D., of the Department of Community and Family Medicine at the University of California at San Diego. This may also help explain fish’s anticancer protection, because fatty fish is packed with vitamin D. Specifically, Dr. Garland finds that dietary vitamin D wards off postmenopausal breast cancer in women over fifty, but not in women who get cancer at younger ages.
– Food Your Miracle Medicine by Jean Carper

In animals fed a high fat diet, which normally would produce a higher incidence of colon cancer, supplements of calcium and vitamin D blocked this carcinogenic effect of the diet. Vitamin D inhibits the growth of breast cancer in culture, and also seems to subdue human breast cancer. Cells from human prostate cancer were put into a “…permanent nonproliferative state”, or shut down the cancer process, by the addition of vitamin D. Human cancer cells have been shown to have receptor sites, or stereo specific “parking spaces” for vitamin D.
– Beating Cancer with Nutrition by Patrick Quillin

Even though vitamin D is one of the most powerful healing chemicals in your body, your body makes it absolutely free. No prescription required. Diseases and conditions caused by vitamin D deficiency: Osteoporosis is commonly caused by a lack of vitamin D, which impairs calcium absorption. Sufficient vitamin D prevents prostate cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, depression, colon cancer, and schizophrenia. “Rickets” is the name of a bone-wasting disease caused by vitamin D deficiency.
– Natural Health Solutions by Mike Adams

George’s Hospital Medical School in London finds local production of vitamin D in breast tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer. For women with low breast tissue levels of vitamin D the risk for breast cancer rose by 354%! This study suggests women sunbathe with breast tissue exposed to the sun to enhance local vitamin D production. The provision of 400 IU of vitamin D per day has been found to reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43%.
– You Don’t Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi

Taken together, these facts suggest that vitamin D and its derivatives may play a role in regulating the expression of genes and protein products that prevent and inhibit breast cancer. The cancer-stopping power of vitamin D has been documented in osteosarcoma (bone cancer), melanoma, colon cancer, and breast cancer. These cancer cells contain vitamin-D receptors that make them susceptible to the anticancer effects of this vitamin-hormone made by the skin when it is exposed to sunlight. Vitamin D-rich foods include salmon, tuna, fish oils, and vitamin D-fortified milk and breakfast cereals.
– Permanent Remissions by Robert Hass, M.S.

Low levels of vitamin D may also increase the proliferation of white blood cells and may accelerate the arthritic process in rheumatoid arthritis. Vitamin D supplements are likely to be useful in retarding these adverse effects of alterations in metabolism. Low levels of vitamin D have been linked to several cancers including those of the colon, prostate and breast. Laboratory experiments show that vitamin D can inhibit the growth of human prostate cancer and breast cancer cells. Lung cancer and pancreatic cancer cells may also be susceptible to the effects of vitamin D.
– The New Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, Supplements and Herbs by Nicola Reavley

Laboratory experiments show that vitamin D can inhibit the growth of human prostate cancer and breast cancer cells. Lung cancer and pancreatic cancer cells may also be susceptible to the effects of vitamin D. Sunlight also seems to be protective against several types of cancer including ovarian, breast and prostate cancers; and this effect may be mediated by vitamin D levels. Synthetic vitamin D-type compounds are being investigated for their potential as anticancer drugs.
– The New Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, Supplements and Herbs by Nicola Reavley

If mutations aren’t corrected or if a cell has already undergone malignant transformation, activated vitamin D can team up with other proteins to stimulate programmed death of abnormal cells. This evidence, along with animal studies, suggest that a girl who lacks adequate vitamin D during puberty years will have abnormal breast development. This, in turn, may increase a woman’s susceptibility to risk factors such as alcohol for breast cancer development. In other words, the window of greatest opportunity for vitamin D to reduce breast cancer risk may be during childhood and puberty.
– The Vitamin D Cure by James Dowd and Diane Stafford

A key development for vitamin D was the appearance of increasing evidence that experts had detected a strong relationship between vitamin D and breast cancer risk. The important Nurses Health Study found a 30 percent lower risk of breast cancer in pre-menopausal women when comparing the highest to the lowest intakes of vitamin D, calcium, and low-fat dairy, especially skim milk.
– The Vitamin D Cure by James Dowd and Diane Stafford

Out of every 100 women who might get breast cancer, 50 of them can avoid breast cancer by simply getting adequate levels of vitamin D in their body, and that’s available free of charge through sensible exposure to natural sunlight, which produces vitamin D. This vitamin, all by itself, reduces relative cancer risk by 50 percent, which is better than any prescription drug that has ever been invented by any drug company in the world. Combine that with green tea, and your prevention of breast cancer gets even stronger.
 Natural Health Solutions by Mike Adams

There’s so much more to vitamin D than enhancing calcium absorption; its anticancer benefit is just one other possibility. Most of 63 recently reviewed studies found a protective effect between vitamin D status and cancer risk. A study presented at the 2006 American Association for Cancer Research meeting suggested that an increase in vitamin D lowered the risk of developing breast cancer by up to 50 percent. How might vitamin D help?
– Food Synergy: Unleash Hundreds of Powerful Healing Food Combinations to Fight Disease and Live Well by Elaine Magee

Place sunshine or vitamin D pills on your list of preventive or therapeutic measures. A daily intake of 2,600 units of vitamin D (65 mcg) is recommended to attain blood concentrations that will optimally protect against disease. There is no way the diet can provide this much vitamin D. Sun-starved females are at great risk for breast cancer, particularly women living in northern latitudes where wintertime sun exposure produces little vitamin D because of a decline in UV radiation in solar light.
– You Don’t Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi

Sunlight produces vitamin D in humans. A deficiency of vitamin D is linked with breast cancer. Was the increase in male breast cancer caused by magnetic fields or by lack of vitamin D? These are the types of questions that make it difficult to ascertain if there is a link between EMF exposure and cancer. To make matters worse, a cell biologist doing work on EMFs for the Department of Energy, faked data linking cancer to electromagnetic fields in order to gain $3.3 million worth of grants for scientific research.
– You Don’t Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi

The dosage of vitamin D required to inhibit the growth of prostate cancer may be much higher than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of 400 international units per day. Since vitamin D can be toxic in doses that greatly exceed this value, researchers have developed synthetic analogues of vitamin D that retain the ability to inhibit cancer cell growth without the toxicity associated with high doses. These analogs have been successfully used in animal models of leukemia and breast cancer. Vitamin D may be related to other cancers.
– Permanent Remissions by Robert Hass, M.S.

Sunlight exposure, which leads to an increased level of vitamin D, correlates with a reduced risk of breast cancer. I usually recommend small amounts of vitamin D (400 to 1,000 IU) for those people without sunlight exposure, especially during the winter. I also occasionally recommend cod liver oil during the winter months as a source of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids. Vitamin D deficiency is very common in the elderly and in people who live in parts of the world with little sunlight; it is also one of the major contributing factors to osteoporosis.
– Herbal Medicine, Healing and Cancer: A Comprehensive Program for Prevention and Treatment by Donald R. Yance, j r.,C.N., M.H., A.H.G., with Arlene Valentine

But how does vitamin D actually work? For many years that was a mystery. The “revolution of information” on vitamin D began in 1968, when J.W. Blunt and colleagues discovered the form of vitamin D that actually circulates in the blood (25-OH-D3). This hormonal form of the vitamin, created in the kidneys, is ultimately responsible for the classical action of the vitamin. At the molecular level, some cancer cells appear to have receptors on their surfaces that are capable of receiving the vitamin D molecule. Scientists studied cancer cells from 136 patients with breast cancer.
– Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer’s Guide To Non-Toxic Treatment & Prevention by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include anorexia, disorientation, dehydration, fatigue, weight loss, weakness, and vomiting. New analogues of vitamin D3 allow cancer victims to take high doses of the vitamin without fear of elevating calcium in the blood to dangerous levels. These new forms of vitamin D have very high potency in controlling cell proliferation and differentiation. One of these, calci-potriol, can be used topically to treat psoriasis and inhibit the growth of metastatic breast cancer in patients with whose tumors have vitamin D receptors.
– Permanent Remissions by Robert Hass, M.S.

In an investigation into the relationship of breast density as measured by mammography to serum-vitamin D levels, it was found that there was a strong inverse correlation; the higher the density, the lower the vitamin D levels. Does the blood level of vitamin D at the time of diagnosis of breast cancer make a difference in a woman’s time of survival? Yes, it does.
 The Clinician’s Handbook of Natural Healing by Gary Null, Ph.D.

Although not part of the study, outdoor exercise where you are getting some (but not too much) sun exposure also raises vitamin D levels. Low levels of vitamin D have been associated with a greater risk of cancer. Relaxation techniques such as writing, meditation, yoga, or massage therapy can aid in battling breast cancer. There is a clear link between alcohol consumption and an increased risk of breast cancer. A study reported in The New England journal of Medicine has stated that consuming as few as three alcoholic drinks a week increases the potential for breast cancer by 50 percent.
– Prescription for Nutritional Healing, 4th Edition: A Practical A-to-Z Reference to Drug-Free Remedies Using Vitamins, Minerals, Herbs & Food Supplements by Phyllis A. Balch, CNC

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/027204_cancer_Vitamin_D_breast.html#ixzz2GCGrQrq6

Vitamina D e Alzheimer – Vitamin D may reduce the risk of dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease

The New England Journal of Medicine


Sobre Vitamina D, assista ao vídeo do Programa Sem Censura:

Vitamina D – Sem Censura – Dr. Cicero Galli Coimbra e Daniel Cunha



Posted on July 25, 2012 by Dr William Grant

A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on a number of biomarker and behavior changes in dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease, and proposed that treatment and prevention trials could incorporate these pathophysiological changes to gauge the likelihood of future clinical success.1 Some of the changes noted were reduced glucose metabolism in the brain, amyloid-beta deposition in the brain, and increased cognitive impairment.


Colleagues and I suggested in a published commentary on this paper that raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations might be able to prevent or slow the development of Alzheimer’s disease.2 The evidence is outlined here.

Two studies found vitamin D reduced amyloid-beta in the brain.3, 4 One paper found a beneficial role of vitamin D for glucose transport and utilization in the brain.5 A recent longitudinal study found a significant increase in global cognitive impairment for women with low vs. high serum 25(OH)D concentrations.6 A recent review discussed the evidence that vitamin D reduces the risk of cognitive impairment.7

Additional evidence that vitamin D reduces the risk of Alzheimer’s disease is given in several other papers.8, 9

Thus, higher serum 25(OH)D concentrations may reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Based on results from other studies, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations should be above 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/l) for optimal health.10


1.Bateman RJ, Xiong C, Benzinger TL, et al. Clinical and Biomarker Changes in Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Disease. N Engl J Med. 2012; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202753

2. Grant WB, Mascitelli L, Goldstein MR. Vitamin D may reduce the risk of dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease. NEJM. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1202753#t=comments

3. Yu J, Gattoni-Celli M, Zhu H, et al. Vitamin D3-enriched diet correlates with a decrease of amyloid plaques in the brain of AβPP transgenic mice. J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;25:295-307.

4. Mizwicki MT, Menegaz D, Zhang J, et al. Genomic and nongenomic signaling induced by 1α,25(OH)2-vitamin D3 promotes the recovery of amyloid-β phagocytosis by Alzheimer’s disease macrophages. J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;29:51-62.

5. Kumar PT, Antony S, Nandhu MS, et al. Vitamin D3 restores altered cholinergic and insulin receptor expression in the cerebral cortex and muscarinic M3 receptor expression in pancreatic islets of streptozotocin induced diabetic rats. J Nutr Biochem. 2011;22:418-25.

6. Slinin Y, Paudel M, Taylor BC, et al. Association Between Serum 25(OH) Vitamin D and the Risk of Cognitive Decline in Older Women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012 Mar 27. [Epub ahead of print]

7. Soni M, Kos K, Lang IA, et al. Vitamin D and cognitive function. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 2012 Apr;243:79-82.

8. Wang L, Hara K, Van Baaren JM, et al. Vitamin D receptor and Alzheimer’s disease: a genetic and functional study. Neurobiol Aging. 2012 Aug;33(8):1844.e1-9.

9. Annweiler C, Rolland Y, Schott AM, et al. Higher Vitamin D Dietary Intake Is Associated With Lower Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease: A 7-Year Follow-up. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012 Apr 13. [Epub ahead of print]

10. Cannell JJ, Hollis BW, Zasloff M, Heaney RP. Diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2008 Jan;9(1):107-18.

About Dr William Grant
Dr. William Grant is an epidemiologist and founder of the nonprofit organization Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC). He has written over 140 peer-reviewed articles and editorials on vitamin D and health. Dr. Grant is the Science Director of the Vitamin D Council and also serves on their Board. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics from UC Berkeley.

Fonte: http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/2012/07/25/vitamin-d-may-reduce-the-risk-of-dominantly-inherited-alzheimers-disease/


Asma e Vitamina D – Vitamin D deficiency and poorer lung function in asthmatic children treated with steroids

Asthma in America

Asthma in America (Photo credit: GDS Infographics)


Assista à entrevista sobre este assunto, em português:

Vitamina D – Sem Censura – Dr. Cicero Galli Coimbra e Daniel Cunha

Ao vídeo:

Vitamina D – Por uma outra terapia (Vitamin D – For an alternative therapy)


Vitamina D pode revolucionar o tratamento da esclerose múltipla



Vitamin D deficiency is associated with poorer lung function in asthmatic children treated with inhaled corticosteroids, according to a new study from researchers in Boston.

“In our study of 1,024 children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, those who were deficient in vitamin D levels showed less improvement in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) after one year of treatment with inhaled corticosteroids than children with sufficient levels of vitamin D,” said Ann Chen Wu, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the Department of Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute. “These results indicate that vitamin D supplementation may enhance the anti-inflammatory properties of corticosteroids in patients with asthma.”

The findings were published online ahead of print publication in the American Thoracic Society‘s American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The study was conducted using data from the Childhood Asthma Management Program, a multi-center trial of asthmatic children between the ages of five and 12 years who were randomly assigned to treatment with budesonide (inhaled corticosteroid), nedocromil, or placebo. Vitamin D levels were categorized as deficient (≤ 20 ng/ml), insufficient (20-30 ng/ml), or sufficient (> 30 ng/ml).

Among children treated with inhaled corticosteroids, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 increased during 12 months of treatment by 330 ml in the vitamin D insufficiency group and 290 ml in the vitamin D sufficiency group, but only 140 ml in the vitamin D deficient group.

Compared with children who were vitamin D sufficient or insufficient, children who were vitamin D deficient were more likely to be older, be African American, and have higher BMI. Compared with being vitamin D deficient, being vitamin D sufficient or insufficient was associated with a greater change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 over 12 months of treatment after adjustment for age, gender, race, BMI, history of emergency department visits, and season that the vitamin D specimen was drawn.

The study had some limitations, including a small sample size of 101 vitamin D deficient children, and the investigators only studied vitamin D levels at one time point.

“Our study is the first to suggest that vitamin D sufficiency in asthmatic children treated with inhaled corticosteroids is associated with improved lung function,” said Dr. Wu. “Accordingly, vitamin D levels should be monitored in patients with persistent asthma being treated with inhaled corticosteroids. If vitamin D levels are low, supplementation with vitamin D should be considered.”
Source: American Thoracic Society



Insuficiência de Vitamina D pode causar perda de mobilidade e invalidez – Not getting enough vitamin D could cause you to lose mobility, become disabled

20/2.2011 vitamin D

20/2.2011 vitamin D (Photo credit: julochka)

Assista à entrevista sobre este assunto, em português:

 Vitamina D – Sem Censura – Dr. Cicero Galli Coimbra e Daniel Cunha

Ao vídeo:

Vitamina D – Por uma outra terapia (Vitamin D – For an alternative therapy)


Vitamina D pode revolucionar o tratamento da esclerose múltipla

“Based on data collected from the comprehensive Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, also known as Health ABC, the new study establishes a clear connection between vitamin D levels and overall mobility and bodily function. Compiled by researchers from the Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina, the paper highlights how vitamin D levels directly affect an individual’s ability to perform everyday tasks like walking, climbing stairs, cycling, and engaging in various other forms of moderate exercise.”

Wednesday, July 11, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) There is no longer any doubt that regular, unfiltered sunlight exposure, which helps promote and maintain optimal blood levels of vitamin D, plays a critical role in health promotion and disease prevention. And a recent study published in the Journal of Gerontology: Medical Science further confirms this, having found that inadequate blood levels of vitamin D can lead to decreased mobility and even disablement, particularly among the elderly.

Based on data collected from the comprehensive Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, also known as Health ABC, the new study establishes a clear connection between vitamin D levels and overall mobility and bodily function. Compiled by researchers from the Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina, the paper highlights how vitamin D levels directly affect an individual’s ability to perform everyday tasks like walking, climbing stairs, cycling, and engaging in various other forms of moderate exercise.

More than 2,000 individuals of both Caucasian and African-American backgrounds, and with an average age of around 75-years-old, participated in the study. Researchers measured the participants’ blood serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), a pre-hormone associated with vitamin D levels in the body, at the beginning of the study and at six-month intervals for six years, and compared these levels to overall mobility rates among the participants.

At the onset of the study, nearly 30 percent of the participants had blood levels of 25(OH)D less than 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL), while more than 36 percent had levels between 20 and 30 ng/mL. Only 35 percent of the group had 25(OH)D levels of 30 ng/mL, which is largely considered to be the cutoff point for determining vitamin D deficiency.

Upon evaluation, those with 25(OH)D levels below 30 ng/mL were found to be 30 percent more likely to develop mobility problems than those with higher levels, while those with 25(OH)D levels below 20 ng/mL, which is considered to be grossly deficient, were about 100 percent more likely to develop disability compared to those with higher levels.

“About one-third of older adults have low vitamin D levels,” said Denise Houston, Ph.D., R.D., a nutrition epidemiologist at the Wake Forest Baptist Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, concerning the study. “It’s difficult to get enough vitamin D through diet alone, and older adults, who may not spend much time outdoors may need to take a vitamin D supplement.”

Vitamin D deficiency even more prevalent than study shows Though the findings of the study indicate that only about a third of elderly adults have vitamin D levels above what is considered to be deficient, the Vitamin D Council says the true cutoff point for vitamin D deficiency is really about 40 ng/mL rather than 30 ng/mL — 50 ng/mL, in fact, is a more realistic cutoff point for vitamin D deficiency.

With this in mind, far more than 60 percent of the elderly are vitamin D deficient, and likely suffering from needless health and mobility issues as a result. According to the Vitamin D Council, upwards of 90 percent of humanity is vitamin D deficient.

To learn more about vitamin D, visit: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Sources for this article include:




Fonte: http://www.naturalnews.com/036436_vitamin_D_deficiency_mobility.html


UN: discussion about maternal health


While world leaders are meeting at the United Nations this week to discuss progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), Chris Smith, member of the American Congress, explains in the Washington Post that a strong reduction in infant and maternal mortality remains very uncertain if the Obama administration “either directly or covertly” integrates abortion into the final document.

He recalls that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “has said publicly that she believes access to abortion is part of maternal and reproductive health, thinking that runs contrary to the understanding of the more than 125 UN member states that prohibit or otherwise restrict abortion in their sovereign laws and constitutions.” For Chris Smith, reducing maternal and infant mortality are the two most realisable objectives today, but they would be compromised if the UN summit is influenced by the demands of pro-abortion activists.

To achieve Millennium Development Goal No. 4, which is to reduce infant mortality rates by two thirds from 1990 figures, Chris Smith explains that numerous cost-effective actions must be expanded, notably “treatment and prevention of disease, as well as greater access to adequate food and nutrition, clean water, childhood vaccinations, oral rehydration packets, antibiotics, and drugs to inhibit mother-to-child HIV transmission”. He adds that there is an immediate need for care of unborn children to optimise their health before and after birth, good health starting in the womb. Chris Smith recalls that abortion is by definition the death of a child and as such compromises Goal No. 4. In addition, it is heavy in negative consequences for the health of women, affecting them emotionally and psychologically.

Goal No. 5, the reduction in maternal mortality by 75% from 1990 figures, can be achieved by “skilled attendance at birth, treatment to stop hemorrhages, access to safe blood, emergency obstetric care, antibiotics, repair of fistulas, adequate nutrition, and pre- and post-natal care”.

Chris Smith quotes a study* that appeared in April 2010 in the British journal The Lancet and was financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which reports a global decline of 35% in maternal mortality, which went from 526 300 in 1980 to 342 900 in 2008. These figures confirm those of the World Health Organisation report entitled “Trends in maternal mortality” made public on 15 September 2010. Chris Smith stresses that “contrary to prevailing myths, the study underscored that many nations that have laws prohibiting abortion also have some of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world – Ireland, Chile and Poland among them”. LifeNews adds The Lancet researchers were surprised to discover that three of the richest countries of the world had rising figures of maternal mortality: the United States, Canada and Norway, which have liberal laws on abortion.

* The Lancet, “Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5”, Margaret C Hogan MSc, Kyle J Foreman AB, Mohsen Naghavi MD, Stephanie Y Ahn BA, Mengru Wang BA, Susanna M Makela BS, Prof Alan D Lopez PhD, Prof Rafael Lozano MD, Prof Christopher JL Murray MD

Washington Post (Chris Smith) 19/09/10 – Medical News Today 21/09/10 – Lifenews (Steven Ertelt) 15/09/10 – Nouvelobs.com 15/09/10


%d blogueiros gostam disto: