Mark Burger's blog

Exaspiration: Vit D and Immunity

Advertisement

4 Comments

It really is demonstrative this total lack of media attention to an inexpensive, immensely safe ("It seems clear that restoring physiological serum levels of 25(OH)D will help many more patients that it will hurt. In fact, living in America today while worrying about vitamin D toxicity is like dying of thirst in the desert while worrying about drowning."John Cannell, M.D., Vitamin D Council) and incredibly effective (7% reduction in all cancers) therapy.
If there was a drug developed tomorrow that reduced all cancers by 7% it would be front page news.

"Regardless of vitamin D's effects on innate immunity, activated vitamin D is a pluripotent pleiotropic seco-steroid with as many mechanisms of action as the 1,000 human genes it regulates [93]. Evidence continues to accumulate of vitamin D's involvement in a breathtaking array of human disease and death [40,41]." Virology Journal 2008 5:29

"1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (active form of vitamin D: calcitriol) acts as an immune system modulator, preventing excessive expression of inflammatory cytokines and increasing the 'oxidative burst' potential of macrophages. Perhaps most importantly, it dramatically stimulates the expression of potent anti-microbial peptides, which exist in neutrophils, monocytes, natural killer cells, and in epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract where they play a major role in protecting the lung from infection." Epidemiology & Infection 2006 Dec:134(6):1129-40

According to research from this newly published study by Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., FACE, "It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D level to 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three quarters of deaths from these diseases, in the US and Canada."

THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH HEALTH CARE AND DRUG DEVELOPMENT IN PARTICULAR! PROFITS BEFORE PATIENTS.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

PharmacistMark BurgerJoined: Jul, 2009
Location: Windsor, CA
Posts: 27

These are not obscure sources -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR201006...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main54048...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFlu/swine-flu-pandemic-world-health-or...

"The second report, a joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which is based in London, criticized 2004 guidelines the WHO developed based in part on the advice of three experts who received consulting fees from the two leading manufacturers of antiviral drugs used against the virus, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline."

rxqueen's picturePharmacistrxqueenJoined: May, 2009
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 23

Thank you.

PharmacistMark BurgerJoined: Jul, 2009
Location: Windsor, CA
Posts: 27

OK, I didn't see anything here about the two biggest stories about the H1N1 Vaccine and alleged "pandemic". Here it is: 1) W.H.O. officials who influenced the decision to call the H1N1 infection a pandemic were on the payroll of the vaccine manufacturers and WHO was not transparent around this issue; 2) the CDC ordered the States to stop identifying the viruses that were assumed to be H1N1. Why? Maybe because over 80% of all "flu like syndromes" reported during flu season WERE NOT H1N1 ... they weren't even the FLU at all. Most were just URIs.
Since it would be important for you and I and the Government to KNOW if a person was infected with a certain strain (H1N1 for example) so that we would know who was vulnerable and who was immune IN THE FUTURE, why would they stop this data collection. Sounds suspicious to me.

rxqueen's picturePharmacistrxqueenJoined: May, 2009
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 23

Could you please state your sources about the W.H.O. officials and the incorrect diagnoses? I'd like to know exactly where you got this information. Since about three-quarters of what is posted on the Internet is bogus, incorrect, or inaccurate, I like to know I am reading reputably-sourced information.