Replies

“It may well be taken as another attack on Vitamins, in the popular press (thanks to Big Pharma money and influence.)”

Here is Dr. Marshall’s agenda, in his own words:

“Tang et. al, suggested that ‘if Vitamin D is to be used as an adjunct supplement to calcium, its dose should be 800 IU or more.’ It would seem that, if supplementation with Vitamin D is to be effective in the reduction of osteoporosis, it should be administered by a physician, and not via the food chain. Both risks, and benefits, should be evaluated thoroughly.”

You got that? He thinks Vitamin D is a drug that should be controlled by the medical monopoly. I guess you’ll also need a prescription from your doctor to be admitted to the beach during the summer, since 20 minutes of intense summer sunlight causes your body to make 10,000 IU of Vitamin D. Maybe soon the nanny state will require a prescription from the doctor just to cross the street.

I’m sorry that Dr. Marshall has an uncommon condition that causes him to react badly to Vitamin D supplementation ( and presumably sunlight also ). Even the most harmless substance known to man, co-enzyme Q10, has a contra-indication, yeast infection. But I don’t think he has made a rational case that Vitamin D supplementation is anything but helpful for a large majority of the population.

But I don’t think he has made a rational case that Vitamin D supplementation is anything but helpful for a large majority of the population.

That's the key.

Some benefit from Vitamin D supplements in our food chain, some are harmed, and some get by either way just fine.

Moreover the benefit may be great (life saving) or minor (fewer cases of sniffles), and the harm may be great (life threatening) or minor.

He makes a case of less Vitamin D for those who would be harmed (duh), and he makes a case that public policy (the FDA) should not be changed at this time to encourage more Vitamin D supplementation. First we should better understand how many people are in these various groups.

I don't see, yet anywhere, where he directly advocates reducing the current supplementation of Vitamin D, though he does present suggesting evidence that such might be the case.

He is advocating that the FDA not extend Vitamin D supplementation at the present time, and he is encouraging funding (surprise, surprise) of more studies.

But I don’t think he has made a rational case that Vitamin D supplementation is anything but helpful for a large majority of the population.

Here's another recent study, this from Duke University, that suggests Vitamin D supplementation in older people is more harmful, causing brain lesions that lead to earlier death and other diseases: Duke University researchers connect vitamin D with brain lesions.

The risk-reward tradeoffs for Vitamin D supplements, as they vary by diverse populations, may be less uniformly rewarding than we have thought.