Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Vitamin D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vitamin D. Show all posts

Sunday, January 12, 2014

The "FLU"..... Really?

I have two articles to share with you in the coughy coldy season.

First up- an oldie but a goodie that still holds absolute truth!  NO ONE TRACKS FLU DEATHS!!  Not the governments, not the health agencies, not the CDC.  All of their "thousands dying from the flu!" rhetoric is based on guesses, and on selling vaccines and anti viral drugs.

And number two:  you don't need vaccines OR anti viral drugs!  Vitamin D is the miracle maker of the immune system- it's damn cheap- free even if you go outside! 

Until the fall of 2011, Health Canada paid for vitamin D testing for patients to see if they were vit D deficient.  Then suddenly as more news articles began to talk about the importance of Vit D in over all health and immune strength, Health Canada suddenly decided to stop covering the tests and instead focus on pushing flu vaccines.....  Funny how that works eh?







Analysis

Flu deaths reality check

Credibility of flu models disputed

By Kelly Crowe, CBC News Posted: Nov 25, 2012 5:14 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 25, 2012 5:12 PM ET
Flu deaths reality check
Flu deaths reality check 3:25
Do thousands of Canadians really die every year from the flu? The flu folks keep saying so. I've already heard it repeated several times this year and flu season has just started. This is what the Public Health Agency of Canada said in a recent press release: "Every year, between 2,000 and 8,000 Canadians die of the flu and its complications."
In a CBC interview a few weeks ago an editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal said: "Four thousand to 8,000  people die every year of influenza."
It comes directly from the desk of Canada's chief public health officer. "The flu is serious," he tells us from his website. "Every year, between 2,000 and 8,000 Canadians die of the flu and its complications."
mi-pneumonia-300-cp-rtxqah9
Flu's winter companions include coronavirus, adenovirus and Streptococcus pneumonia. (Vasily Fedosenko/Reuters)
Did you ever wonder how they know that? The fact is, they don't know that. "This is a scientific guess. This is not the truth," Dr. Michael Gardam, director of the infection prevention and control unit at the University Health Network in Toronto and a longtime flu watcher, told me.
The fact is, no one knows how many people die after being infected with the flu virus. The death estimates are not based on body counts, lab tests or autopsies.
"I think people may have the misconception that every person who dies from the flu is somehow counted somewhere, and they're not," Gardam said.
The "2,000 to 8,000" numbers are based on computer models — a statistical guess that comes out of the end of a mathematical formula that makes a range of assumptions about death and flu.
"They're tossing it into a big computer and they're churning out estimates," Gardam said as he scribbled numbers on a white board to show me how the models work.
One model counts all respiratory and circulatory deaths — that's death from heart and lung failure — as flu deaths.
"As an upper limit, they are looking at everybody who died of a heart and lung problem," Gardam said. "So you could imagine this could include people who died of a heart attack that had nothing to do with flu, but the feeling is that anybody who died of flu should be captured in there, plus a lot of other people."
At the lower end of that model they count the number of deaths officially listed as "influenza" on the death certificate, plus all deaths from pneumonia — even though not all pneumonia is caused by flu.
"That is going to include obviously people who died specifically of those, but it might miss people who died of influenza but who didn't get tested, for example," Gardam said.

Data can include deaths by poison

Another model assumes that every extra death that happens in the winter is a flu death. At the risk of oversimplifying, this is the basic formula of that model: winter deaths (minus) summer deaths = death by flu virus.
That includes winter deaths from slippery sidewalks, snowy roads, freezing temperatures, plus all the winter heart failure, lung failure and deaths from cancer. In the language of the computer model, all excess mortality in winter is considered "death by flu."
The model extrapolates that the flu virus will cause more deaths across all causes, including "disorders of the nervous system," stroke and "disorders of the digestive system." Which means that according to the model, flu causes 33 more "accidental falls" every year, 18 more "accidental poisonings," and 68 more deaths from "psychotic conditions." But what does flu have to do with deaths from accidental poisonings or accidental falls? 
'If they don't collect that information, how do they know that their policies will work? This is called faith-based medicine.'— Dr. Tom Jefferson
How reliable are the computer model estimates? "I don't think they're reliable at all," Dr. Tom Jefferson told me. He is a Rome-based researcher with the Cochrane Collaboration, and he spends his days reviewing all the research on acute respiratory infections and vaccines. He said hard data on flu deaths "are difficult to get hold of for obvious reasons. So enter modelling, which is nothing more than guesswork, highly sensitive to the assumptions you feed into the model. 'Give me a model and I will make it say whatever you want,' a colleague of mine always repeats."
The models are only as good as the data sets that are fed into them. And death can be complicated. If someone already extremely fragile with heart or lung disease is tipped over the edge with a flu infection, is that a flu death, or a heart death or a lung death? Which database gets to claim it?
"The only mortality estimates which have any credibility are those based on post mortem examinations and tests which were done before death," Jefferson said.

Flu death statistics not collected

In a perfect world, the flu death statistic would be based on an actual count of confirmed deaths after infection with the flu virus. But that's difficult to do, because autopsies are almost never done, lab tests for the flu virus are rarely done, and someone could die from the complications of flu even though the virus is no longer detectable in their bodies.
The numbers we do have don't even come close to the computer estimates. In Statistics Canada's "deaths and mortality" table, under "cause of death: influenza," there were only about 300 deaths a year between 2000 and 2008. Public health officials don't trust that number. They believe it underestimates the true death toll from flu.
But Jefferson believes the models overstate the risk from influenza. "There are no real figures on deaths from influenza. They don't collect that information," he said. "So if they don't collect that information, how do they know it's a threat? And if they don't collect that information, how do they know that their policies will work? This is called faith-based medicine, not evidence-based medicine."
220-michael-gardam
Dr. Michael Gardam, an infectious disease expert at Toronto's University Health Network, says estimates of the number of flu deaths each year "vary a great deal depending on which research paper you read." (CBC)
"Could the deaths be being caused by other pathogens? It's an important question," Dr. Kumanan Wilson told me. He holds the Canada Research Chair in public health policy at the University of Ottawa. He's also a hospital clinician who has seen many flu seasons.
"We see lots of people coming in with upper respiratory infections and we don't know what causes it. Sometimes if they are really sick, we'll test for influenza. We rarely test for anything else."
One of the few attempts to check the accuracy of the models in assessing flu deaths was done by one of Wilson's master's students, and her thesis is interesting reading.
Using data from three Ottawa hospitals over seven flu seasons, Tiffany Smith did two things. First, she counted the patients who died from flu, according to a doctor’s diagnosis. Then, using one of the official flu modelling methods, she ran a computer model to see how close the actual body count matched the statistical estimates. Her result? The statistical model predicted eight times as many deaths from flu as there were actual clinical cases.
"I have found evidence to suggest that point estimates of influenza burden generated using statistical models may not be reliable," she concluded, "and that more research is required to understand the limitations of this methodology."
Remember, that's an unpublished thesis, not a peer-reviewed study. But Wilson said it was a well done paper that posed some important questions.

Health Canada resists queries

Just as an aside, I tried to contact Tiffany Smith to ask about her thesis, because she is one of the few people to attempt to validate the models. It seemed that she wanted to talk to me. Here's her response to my email:
Hi Kelly, I would love to talk to you about my thesis! However, because I work for the Agency, I'm obliged to engage media relations even if it's just for background info.
The "Agency" is the federal government, specifically, the Public Health Agency of Canada, a branch of Health Canada. My request for permission to talk to Tiffany about her student thesis was directed all the way up to the chief of media relations for Health Canada. Here is my email to him:
Hello. My name is Kelly Crowe and I am the medical sciences correspondent for CBC National TV news and I would like to talk to Tiffany Smith about her graduate thesis, as background research for a story I am doing. She is interested in talking to me, but she has been told that she needs to get permission, and she forwarded me your email address and suggested I contact you.
It would be a phone conversation about her master's thesis, and I will not be asking her any questions about her current work. I would not be speaking to her as a representative of a government agency, but only as the author of a student thesis.
Thank you, Kelly Crowe
He wrote back, declining on Tiffany Smith's behalf, although he did offer me a chance to ask about the official government point of view. His email:
Hello, Kelly.
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you yesterday. I was out of the office with a bad cold. I've spoken with Tiffany and she would prefer that you quote from her written thesis as her current workload doesn't leave her a lot of extra time these days.
That being said, if you have any questions for PHAC on the subject matter I am happy to have one of our media relations officers get in touch with you. I understand that my colleague Blossom Leung is working with Marijka Hurko already for your piece that is to air this Sunday.
Regards, Alastair
As a further aside, despite Alastair Sinclair's offer to answer questions, we were refused an on camera interview with anyone from Health Canada about any of this. All we received was a written response to our questions, which I have included at the end of this article.

Continue reading the article HERE


http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/vitamin-d-proven-more-effective-than-both-anti-viral-drugs-and-vaccines-at-preventing-the-flu/

January 12, 2014

Vitamin D Proven More Effective Than Both Anti-Viral Drugs and Vaccines At Preventing The Flu

vit d vs flu232221 Vitamin D Proven More Effective Than Both Anti Viral Drugs and Vaccines At Preventing The Flu
by Marco Torres
PreventDisease.com
The risk of children suffering from flu can be reduced by 50% if they take vitamin D, doctors in Japan have found. The finding has implications for flu epidemics since vitamin D, which is naturally produced by the human body when exposed to direct sunlight, has no significant side effects, costs little and can be several times more effective than anti-viral drugs or vaccines according to research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Only one in ten children, aged six to 15 years, taking the sunshine vitamin in a clinical trial came down with flu compared with one in five given a dummy tablet. Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the Japanese doctor who led the trial, told The Times that vitamin D was more effective than vaccines in preventing flu.
Vitamin D was found to be even more effective when the comparison left out children who were already given extra vitamin D by their parents, outside the trial. Taking the sunshine vitamin was then shown to reduce the risk of flu to a third of what it would otherwise be.
Dr. Damien Downing, a doctor and medical consultant has publicly stated that governments “do like” epidemics as a chance to impose their will. The London based doctor has been advising patients to increase their vitamin D intake rather than get the vaccine.
You might be shocked to know that there are many physicians in both Canada and the United States who prescribe as much as 50,000 IU of vitamin D daily as a treatment for a long list of chronic diseases.
Dr. John Cannell, MD, suggests high-dose vitamin D (50,000 IU) be consumed for three days at the first sign of a cold or the flu. If you have an infection, the truth is you need more vitamin D. That’s a given. In other words, vitamin D acts as a natural antibiotic. It works against every type of microbe (viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites).
Vitamin D deficiency is common during the winter months, especially in countries far north of the equator. Vitamin D acts as an immune system modulator, preventing excessive production of inflammatory cytokines and increasing macrophage (a type of white cell) activity. Vitamin D also stimulates the production of potent anti-microbial peptides in other white blood cells and in epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract, protecting the lungs from infection.
50 Percent Reduction In Flu Infections Using Vitamin D
Altogether 354 children took part in the trial. Vitamin D was found to protect against influenza A but not against the less common influenza B.
The trial, which was double blind, randomised, and fully controlled scientifically, was conducted by doctors and scientists from Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan.
The children were given a daily dose of 1200 IUs (international units) of vitamin D over a period of three months. In the first month children in the group taking the vitamin became ill just as often as those taking the dummy tablet. But by the second month, when the vitamin level in the children’s blood was higher, the advantage of the vitamin was clear.
The Japanese scientists, writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, say that the anti-viral drugs zanamivir and oseltamivir reduce risk of flu infection by 8 percent in children who have been exposed to infection, compared with a 50 percent or greater reduction with vitamin D.
Anti-virals are typically more effective than vaccines for the influenza virus which suggests that both forms of medical intervention would consistently fail in similar studies when pitted against vitamin D.
Anti-virals are also too expensive, and possibly too toxic, to be given to the population as a whole whereas vitamin D has additional benefits. The sunshine vitamin not only prevents bone fractures but is also believed to reduce risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other illness, including various bacterial as well as viral infections.
The Japanese finding supports a theory that low blood levels of the sunshine vitamin occurring in winter explain why flu epidemics generally peak between December and March.
Vitamin D activates the innate immune system, enabling the body to produce several proteins such as defensin and cathelicidin which trigger cell activity and disable viruses.
Dr John Oxford, professor of virology at Queen Mary School of Medicine, London, said: “This is a timely study. It will be noticed by scientists. It fits in with the seasonal pattern of flu. There is an increasing background of solid science that makes the vitamin D story credible. ”
Dose and Vitamin D Levels Are Critical 
Researchers have recently pinpointed the mechanism behind vitamin D3′s ability to enhance the immune system and why it is so critical to our health.
- Vitamin D is not a vitamin, but a steroid hormone precursor, which has profound effects on innate immunity.
- The amount of vitamin D in most food and nearly all multivitamins is literally inconsequential.
- The correct daily dose of vitamin D for adults is approximately 5,000 IU/day, not the 200 to 600 IU recommended by the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Medicine and the FDA.
- The only blood test to determine vitamin D adequacy is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, not the 1,25-di-hydroxy-vitamin D test many physicians now order.
- Healthy vitamin D blood levels are between 70 and 90 ng/ml, levels obtained by fewer than 5% of Americans.
- The mechanism of action of vitamin D in infection, dramatically increasing the body’s production of broad-spectrum natural antibiotics (anti-microbial peptides or AMP), suggests pharmaceutical doses of vitamin D (1,000 IU per pound of body weight per day for several days) will effectively treat not only influenza and the common cold, but help treat a host of other seasonal infections, including meningitis, septicemia, and pneumonia, in both children and adults.
Read the full article here: http://preventdisease.com/news/13/102213_Vitamin-D-Proven-More-Effective-Anti-Viral-Drugs-Vaccines-Preventing-Flu.shtml
Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.
Sources:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ajcn.nutrition.org
mydoctor.ca
timesonline.co.uk


Sunday, September 12, 2010

Vit D for cancer prevention

More and more studies are coming out proving that Vitamin D might be the greatest single anti-cancer "Drug" of our time and more importantly, the safest anti-cancer "drug"!!!! (Not to mention cheapest too!).  Yet even with all these new studies, and some older studies, the American Cancer Society refuses to admit that Vitamin D is the important addition to everyone's daily regime.  Why would that be?  I mean, Isnt' the ACS interested in reducing life threatening cancers like Breast cancer, colon  and skin cancer and many others.  One would think that that would be their main drive- their main reason for being- yet apparently not.

Let e tell you another story about those people that are suppose to be trying to "cure cancer":

Back in 1990 my grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer- SERIOUS prostate cancer- and the doctors didn't give us much hope.  My father contacted a friend of his who had beaten prostate cancer- healed it completely even though it was even further advanced and he had less hope. This friend was completely cured through a series of completely natural treatments and directed him to a group of scientists in the States that had cured him. My father wasted no time trying to contact them. After weeks of phone calls, He finally got a response:  These scientists had been closed down - completely shut down by the government and threatened with legal prosecution and loss of their medical licences (with even worse things being hinted at) if they so much as even hinted at what their anti-cancer therapy consisted of.  My father begged and offered them pretty much anything to help my grandfather, and they refused- no, they disappear.

My grandfather died of Cancer in 1993 after a prolonged battle that left him weaken, miserable and in excruciating pain. So pardon me if I'm a bit jaded against the ACS and the other so called medical associations that are suppose to be supporting and helping people survive atrocious diseases- that are suppose to be looking for "The Cure".....



New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

Friday, June 08, 2007
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com 
Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.

The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full press release of this study is included below. It provides more details about the findings.)

Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate, aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent reduction recorded in this study.

American Cancer Society opposes vitamin D

This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer.

If it seems surprising to you that the American Cancer Society -- which claims to be against cancer -- would dissuade people from taking supplements that slash their cancer risk by 77 percent, then you don't know much about the ACS. In my opinion, the ACS is an organization that actually prevents prevention and openly supports the continuation of cancer as a way to boost its power and profits. The ACS is the wealthiest non-profit in America and has very close ties to pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment companies and other corporations that profit from cancer. Notice the name, too: It isn't the American Anti-Cancer Society, it's the American Cancer Society! What they really stand for is right in the name!

Click here to read more about the ACS and its financial ties to chemical companies, pharmaceutical companies and radiology equipment manufacturers.

The cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and I've written extensively about the criminal organizations that protect and promote the industry. Just about everything the public is told about cancer by these cancer institutions is a lie. Those "race for the cure" cancer walks are a complete scam (they really aren't searching for any way to prevent cancer or cure cancer, they're only searching for new patented drugs to profit from cancer).

This research on vitamin D is a huge threat to the cancer industry profit mongers because it reveals a way to prevent cancer for free -- by seeking natural sunlight exposure and letting your skin manufacture your own powerful anti-cancer medicine (vitamin D). The idea that the cancer industry could lose 80% of its patientsscares the living daylights out of the cancer industry. Billions of dollars in cancer profits are at stake here, so the pro-cancer groups have to do everything they can to discredit vitamin D by creating doubt and confusion. The degree of dishonesty at work here is almost unbelievable to those who don't really know what's happening in the cancer industry.

Ten questions to ask yourself about the cancer industry

Consider these questions:

#1: Why does the cancer industry refuse to educate people about cancer prevention?

#2: If people keep donating money for the "search" for a cancer cure, why won't drug companies pledge to "open source" their patents on cancer drugs to benefit the people whose donations funded them in the first place? In other words, why do people donate money for cancer research but then get charged for cancer drugs?

#3: Why does the entire cancer industry so strongly dissuade people from using sunlight exposure to dramatically reduce their cancer risk? (Hint: Follow the money to the sunscreen industry...)

#4: Why have all the really good cancer supplements, clinics and naturopaths been banned, arrested or run out of the country? (Look up the FDA's oppression of Lane Labs over MGN-3 for a fascinating review of this...)

#5: The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the cancer industry over the last three decades. Cancer cures were promised in the 1970's. Why are cancer rates still essentially the same today as they were in the 1970's?

#6: Why does the cancer industry continue to use chemotherapy, radiation and other toxic procedures to "kill tumors" when the latest science clearly shows that cancer tumors are only the symptoms, not the cause, of cancer? Chemotherapy destroys immune function and causes permanent damage to the heart, brain and liver...

#7: The World Health Organization says that 70% of all cancers are easily preventable through dietary and lifestyle changes. This latest research shows that sunlight and low-cost calcium supplements can slash cancer risk by 77% in women. Why won't conventional medicine embrace this low-cost, safe and highly effective method for preventing cancer?

#8: The cancer industry routinely attacks anti-cancer herbs, superfoods and supplements. Why is the cancer industry opposed to anti-cancer nutrition? Why does it believe that only man, not nature, can manufacture anti-cancer medicines?

#9: Dark skin pigmentation blocks ultraviolet radiation, meaning that people with black skin need far more time under the sun to generate the same amount of vitamin D as someone with white skin. Not surprisingly, black women suffer extremely high rates of breast cancer while black men show similarly high levels of prostate cancer. The white-dominated medical industry pretends to be "mystified" by all this. Why won't conventional medicine simple tell black people the truth about vitamin D, skin pigmentation and cancer? Why do oncologists try to keep black people ignorant about their vitamin D deficiencies?

#10: Why is it illegal for nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their products? Broccoli, garlic, onions and sprouts all have powerful anti-cancer effects, as do dozens of rainforest herbs (Cat's Claw, for example), Chinese herbs and Western herbs. But the FDA threatens and censors any company that dares to mention cancer prevention on its supplement products. Why is the FDA enforcing a policy of nutritional ignorance with U.S. consumers? Why does the federal government

You probably already know the answer to all these questions, because the answer is the same for each one: Corporate profits. Cancer is hugely profitable to treat. Substantially preventing cancer would result in a loss of billions of dollars in profits for the oncologists, drug companies, hospitals and clinics that currently prey upon the finances of cancer victims.

The cancer industry is operated like a criminal racket, using false information, intimidation, political pressure and propaganda to protect its power base and keep its corporations profitable. And that, my friends, is exactly why the industry is against the use of sunlight to prevent cancer. Free medicine from the sky? The very thought of it makes the cancer industry cringe. Sunlight doesn't even need a prescription, you see, and it can't be patented, either.
HERE to read the entire article

Friday, September 10, 2010

Vitamin D: Further studies on Fetal Development

Vitamin D: Further studies on Fetal Development

Informed Parenting guest Blog by Emma Kwasnica back in July 2010 on Vitamin D: More information about Pregnancy & Breastfeeding  and a few days earlier post on Vit D and Pregnancy & Breastfeeding generate a lot of interest from readers.  Emma sent me this article last night as a follow up, and here I am typing away at 7am to get the information out to you!!

Low vitamin D in newborns linked to schizophrenia 

Martin Mittelstaedt
From Friday's Globe and Mail
The cause of schizophrenia has long baffled doctors, but a tantalizing clue has emerged that some cases of the debilitating mental disorder are linked to having too little vitamin D during fetal development and early in life.
Researchers studying schizophrenia cases in Denmark have discovered that newborns with the lowest level of the sunshine vitamin in their blood at birth had about twice the risk of developing the disease when they became adults, compared to those with moderate amounts.
The finding suggests it may be possible to reduce the incidence of the illness by having babies and pregnant women either take the vitamin, or increase their exposure to sunshine, the natural way of making the nutrient.
....one previously identified risk factor has hinted at an insufficiency of vitamin D: the time of year a child is born. Children with winter births, when mothers’ vitamin D levels are typically low because of the lack of exposure to strong sunlight, have about a 10-per-cent higher risk of schizophrenia than those born at other times of the year. Fetuses depend entirely on their mothers for the nutrient. 

    HERE to read the entire article on the Globe & Mail Web site

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Vitamin D: More information about Pregnancy & Breastfeeding

Hi Everyone!  This is a guest post article by the infamous Emma Kwasnica.  She wrote this as  "note" on Facebook a few months ago, but as we've been discussing Vitamin D earlier this week I asked her if I could repost her info here. I think that the info about the timing of the birth of babies is vitally important to note as so many babies are being cut from their mothers abdomen or chemically induced far too early, which has serious negative impacts on the baby's Vit D levels that they receive from their mother!

Take it away Emma!


New research regarding Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women and babies

News story here :
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-22-vitamind22_ST_N.htm

Vitamin D is really so crucial. And we're only just now coming to terms with HOW important it truly is --for both mum AND babe.

That said, the "study" regarding infant Vit D levels is no such thing ( http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-2571v1 ). It is a SURVEY that they did --no actual blood levels taken or analysed ! So, it's flawed, in that they're saying the babes don't get "enough" Vit D... wait for it... simply in relation to what the (new) recommendations are ! That's it, that's all ! They speak nothing about bioavailability of nutirients, etc. in breastmilk, nor how Vit D is absorbed (from formula, OR from breastmilk), nor do they address why breastmilk is naturally quite low in Vit D.

The blood testing study (maternal and newborn)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-2158v1
is more (scientifically) rigorous, though I have some questions about birth interventions there, too, namely the exact age of the so-called "healthy" baby at birth (maternal stores of Vit D are ONLY transferred to the fetus in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy, so, at +/- 38 weeks). This means that many of their so-called "healthy" infants --for example, born by elective cesarean surgery, often at 38 weeks... or whom are induced-- should, in fact, be considered "late preterm" babies, and being born even this "little bit" early, will absolutely affect their Vit D levels at birth. They are not "healthy".

The best thing a woman can do to ensure her baby --breastfed or otherwise-- has sufficient Vitamin D stores throughout his/her first 6 months or so of life, is to get out in the sun during her pregnancy (or orally supplement, if she, herself, is deficient; she should demand that her caregiver checks her blood calcidiol levels in pregnancy, as it's but a simple blood req. to add to the battery of blood testing she has done, anyway). The next best thing she can do is insist that she NOT be induced (or insist that a c-section is NOT scheduled) prior to -at least-- 40 weeks. Better still, allow labour to occur spontaneously, when her baby and her body are good and ready. This is because baby's stores are dependent on mother's stores, the transfer of which occurs only at about 38 weeks gestation. Premature babies, and babies who do not stay in the womb until around this time, do NOT get the transfer and will require supplementation (think: elective cesarean surgeries, where dates are so often "off", and baby is even *earlier* than expected, giving to all these late preterm babies --who are therefore Vit D-deficient from birth).

If you are pregnant (1st or 2nd trimester), and you have one or more of the following risk factors :

-your baby is due late winter/spring
-you are NOT fair-skinned, and have an olive or darker complexion
-you wear a head covering and/or have little skin exposed when you *are* outside
-you do not get outside much
-you use sunscreen
-you live in a large city
-you live above the 41st parallel

...consider telling your HCP to give you a blood req. for "maternal serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]" or your blood calcidiol levels, or the "25(OH)D" test for Vit D levels. If your levels are low, and getting out in the sun regularly is not an option for you, you ought to seriously consider supplementing orally with Vitamin D3.

It's also imperative to know that Vit D deficiency also affects muscle performance, and since the uterus is a muscle, this could put you at a greater risk for c-section...

We also really need to stop fearing the sun as much as we do, and get out there and expose ours and baby's skin for short periods, but EVERY day, if possible. Babies that are born in late Winter and early Spring are most at risk of being deficient from birth (as mum spent most of her pregnancy out of the sunlight, gestating baby through the dark months of -a northern hemisphere- winter), and another thing to realise is that putting baby in a sunny window will NOT do the trick; the window pane filters out precisely those rays that our bodies need to make Vit D.

Honestly, your breastfed baby outside for a bit, in just a diaper (no sunscreen), a few times a week throughout the summer months is amply sufficient (darker-skinned babies, obviously, requiring more time in the sun than lighter-skinned ones). This summertime exposure will also ensure your baby's stores throughout the following winter.

Last point that is important to note : yes, we evolved from equator-dwelling folk, but as we migrated away from the equator, we humans adapted, and our skin pigmentation changed --from darker, to lighter (lighter skin allowing for less sun exposure time required to produce the same amount of Vit D in the body). If you are pale, you are much less likely to be Vit D deficient, living in the Northern Hemisphere, as compared to darker-skinned people living in the same region. In other words, if you are dark-skinned, you should really consider supplementation, and if you are dark-skinned and *pregnant*, at least be sure to get your blood calcidiol levels measured by mid-pregnancy (so you have enough time to supplement if need be, before the maternal transfer of stores occurs), and so that your newborn baby will have a liver-full of Vitamin D, to last him or her for several months.

**************************


Just as a follow-up to the links and info I've posted, here is the official LLLI statement regarding Vit D and the breastfed baby. YES, breastmilk is complete, but our lifestyle has changed in such a way that we are now "sun-fearers", and not only do we lather on the sunscreen, we also spend far too much time indoors. We did not evolve as a species to spend so little time outside in the direct sunlight. As well, one's skin colouring IS of great importance, as is WHERE you live in the world. Babies born in late winter/early spring are also at more of a risk for Vit D deficiency. The key is to know and understand one's own risk factors, prevention, and to keep in mind that SUNLIGHT IS FREE !

Please read and pass along this info (note) to any/all breastfeeding mothers you know, as this is not just about rickets --Vit D deficiency, sadly, leads to a host of other problems and (autoimmune) diseases.

**********************************************************

(October 16, 2008) Schaumburg, IL - La Leche League International
encourages all mothers to recognize the importance of vitamin D to the
health of their children. Recent research shows that due to current
lifestyles, breastfeeding mothers may not have enough vitamin D in
their own bodies to pass to their infants through breastmilk.

In October 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that
infants receive 400 IU a day of vitamin D, beginning in the first few
days of life. Children who do not receive enough vitamin D are at risk
for rickets and increased risk for infections, autoimmune diseases,
cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Vitamin D is mainly acquired through exposure to sunlight and
secondarily through food. Research shows that the adoption of indoor
lifestyles and the use of sunscreen have seriously depleted vitamin D
in most women. The ability to acquire adequate amounts of vitamin D
through sunlight depends on skin color and geographic location.

Dark-skinned people can require up to six times the amount of sunlight
as light-skinned people. People living near the equator can obtain
vitamin D for 12 months of the year while those living in northern and
southern climates may only absorb vitamin D for six or fewer months of
the year.

For many years, La Leche League International has offered the
research-based recommendation that exclusively breastfed babies
received all the vitamin D necessary through mother’s milk. Health care
professionals now have a better understanding of the function of
vitamin D and the amounts required, and the newest research shows this
is only true when mothers themselves have enough vitamin D. Statistics
indicate that a large percentage of women do not have adequate amounts
of vitamin D in their bodies.

La Leche League International acknowledges that breastfeeding
mothers who have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their bodies can
successfully provide enough vitamin D to their children through
breastmilk. It is recommended that pregnant and nursing mothers obtain
adequate vitamin D or supplement as necessary. Health care providers
may recommend that women who are unsure of their vitamin D status
undergo a simple blood test before choosing not to supplement.

Parents or health care providers who want more information on
rickets, vitamin D in human milk, or other information on breastfeeding
issues may call La Leche League International at (847) 519-7730 or
visit our Web site at www.llli.org.

******************************************************

UPDATE : May 1, 2010

More recent research confirms crucial importance of adequate levels of Vitamin D in pregnant women:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/30/vitamin.d.pregnancy/index.html?hpt=T2

Monday, July 12, 2010

Pregnancy, Breastfeeding and Vitamin D

A new study from Britain calls for stronger Vitamin D supplements for women who are pregnant.  This is not the first study of it's kind, yet it always seems to hit the media like it's some sort of new fad.  In our age of people hiding from sun exposure, vitamin D deficiency is a common side effect. Women living in Northern climes where sun exposure may require battling with raging winter winds and snow squalls for several months a year, or having a job that keeps you indoors for a vast portion of your day may leave you with less than optimum levels of Vitamin D and therefore during pregnancy  they may be unable to pass along enough Vit D to their babies.

Pregnant women advised to take vitamin D

By Shane Starling, 05-Jul-2010

British researchers have concluded pregnant women should be advised to take vitamin D after determining there is a “strong case” to back the vitamin’s benefits.

The researchers from the University College London Institute of Child Health wrote in the British Journal of Nutrition that supplementation of vitamin D will benefit pregnant women and reduce the risk of diseases such as infantile hypocalcaemia and rickets.
They said the UK was the only country in 31 that did not officially recommend vitamin D use women of reproductive age, even though the Department of Health advises pregnant women to take 10 micrograms per day....
"The incidence of vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women in Britain is unacceptably high, especially during winter and spring,” said Dr Elina Hypponen, one of the report authors.
"This is compounded by a lack of exposure to sunlight and the limitations of an average diet to meet the optimal need. In the most severe cases, maternal vitamin D deficiency can be life threatening to a newborn.”
"We believe that the routine provision of a daily supplement throughout pregnancy would significantly decrease the number of mothers who are clearly vitamin D deficient, reducing related serious risks to their babies."
The research also highlighted the problem of women with dark skin who do not absorb as much sunlight and therefore manufacture less vitamin D in vivo.
Source: British Journal of Nutrition

 HERE to read the entire article

This also applies to breastfeeding mothers.  Many times the statement that breastmilk is lacking enough vitamin D and that therefore babies should be give Vitamin D supplements has been hashed and rehashed through the media and doctors offices over and  over again.  Yet rarely have these stated the reason WHY breastmilk might be Vitamin D deficient:  Because the Mother herself is also Deficient in Vit D!!!!  It makes sense does it not?  If mom is already not getting enough, then how can she pass on enough to her baby- either in the womb or in her breastmilk?


Pregnancy and Lactation

One of the great mysteries in human biology is the fact that most human breast milk is deficient in vitamin D. How could Nature overlook such an important nutrient in the "perfect food?" One possibility is that most human breast milk is deficient in vitamin D because most mothers are deficient in vitamin D.
Two very important papers detailing this were published by Dr. Bruce Hollis and his group from the Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, at the Medical University of South Carolina. Both papers support the concept of widespread deficiencies in pregnant women, especially black women, and both papers call for drastic upward revisions of maternal vitamin D supplementation.
One of the papers discovered that pregnant women need at least 4,000 IU a day of vitamin D to maintain both their own vitamin D levels and that of their infants. Ideally, they should receive at least 5,000 IU per day.

HERE to go to the original article with multiple links to further studies on Vit D 

Infact Canada has an excellent article about Vit D supplementation of breastfed infants.  Infact points out that most of the statements about the "deficiency" of Breastmilk is blown out  of proportion and the blatant sales pitch for liquid supplement for infants totally unnecessary.  If mom has enough, so will Baby!!!!!!
How impartial is Canada's Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants1?
A just released pamphlet* from the Canadian Pediatric Society explaining the vitamin D recommendation of the infant feeding statement, says it all. Using language designed to arouse fear in new parents, breastmilk is dismissed as nutritionally inadequate, "Breastmilk contains 15 to 40 I.U. of vitamin D per litre and does not provide your baby with an adequate intake of vitamin D". Added to this are graphic descriptions of the symptoms of rickets, all designed to create doubt and anxiety on the part of parents in a mother's ability to breastfeed. Parents are told that sunlight is not a reliable source but that a "daily vitamin D supplement is a far more reliable way." One wonders did they not read the scientific literature? Did they not read the articles about the low prevalence and that only a very select minority is at risk? Did they note in the literature that vitamin D is not naturally a dietary substance but is derived from exposure to the sun? Pushing a product with kickbacks to the profession seems to be the quick fix.
*This brochure was produced by the Canadian Pediatric Society and made possible by an educational grant from Mead Johnson Nutritionals, makers of D-VI-SOL

HERE to read the entire article on Infact Canada's website

And finally, here's what Dr. Jack Newman has to say on the topic:

Vitamin D
It seems that breastmilk does not contain much vitamin D, but it does have a little. We must assume this is as nature intended not a mistake of evolution. In fact, breastmilk is one of the few natural foods that does contain some vitamin D. We were obviously meant to get our vitamin D from being exposed to sunlight. The baby stores up vitamin D during the pregnancy and he will remain healthy without vitamin D supplementation for at least a couple of months, unless the mother herself is vitamin D deficient during the pregnancy. Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women in Canada and the USA is uncommon, but it does exist. Outside exposure also gives your baby vitamin D even in winter, even when the sky is cloudy. A few minutes of exposure very late on a summer’s day is ample. Thirty minutes during a summer week, and an hour or so in winter, gives your baby more than enough vitamin D even if only his face is exposed.

Under unusual circumstances, it may be prudent to give the baby vitamin D. For example, in situations where exposure of the baby to ultraviolet rays of the sun is not possible (Northern Canada in winter or if the baby is never taken outside), giving the baby vitamin D drops would be advised. If you have had very little outside exposure yourself (women who are veiled are particularly at risk, especially if they are dark skinned), make sure your intake of vitamin D during the pregnancy is higher than usually recommended. Your baby may need vitamin D supplementation as well. Recent studies suggest that high intake of vitamin D while breastfeeding (4000 IU a day—10 times the usual recommended dose) does in fact increase the amount of vitamin D in the milk to levels that will protect the baby from rickets.

HERE to read the original article on NBCI website

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Killing the Hospital Super Bugs

Again and again we have heard it, from medical journals, the media and even some doctors:  that antibiotics are being widely and wildly over used in Canada and the US.  Infections are becoming more difficult to cure, bacteria have turned into superbugs that are very quickly becoming antibiotic resistant, and what was once a simple "cold" is turning into weeks of convalescence. These Super Villans are called MRSAs (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). The media has published a few  news stories about hospital super bugs that are killing thousands of patients ... but for the most part it's a big hush hush: the skeleton in the closet.  No hospital or doctor really wants to admit when a patient dies from a complicated infection that they CAUGHT in the hospital. We go there to receive treatment and "get well", right? 

Recently though there have been news stories of hospital cover ups and false death certificates, as some medical professionals panic to cover up the truth and try to hide the real reason so many patients have died .... and to save their insurance premiums from sky rocketing no doubt.

But what are our hospitals doing to combat these Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Staph, or "SuperBug" infections ?  Ordering more antibiotics?  Apparently the fact that it is the rampant over use of antibiotics that created these monsters is lost on them... or they just keep hoping to come up with some "super antibiotic" to act as Kryptonite to the Superbugs.  Regardless, nothing they have done has helped and in fact the problem is growing exponentially all over the world..... or is it?

One small country has all but eradicated the MRSA infections that threatened their national population years ago and they did it without any kryptonian antibiotics.

Twenty-five years ago, Norwegians were also losing their lives to this bacteria. But Norway's public health system fought back with an aggressive program that made it the most infection-free country in the world. The key part of that program?  Severely cutting back on the use of antibiotics.

Norway's model is surprisingly straightforward.

• Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than any other country, so people do not have a chance to develop resistance to them.

• Patients with MRSA are isolated and medical staff who test positive stay at home.

• Doctors track each case of MRSA by its individual strain, interviewing patients about where they've been and who they've been with, testing anyone who has been in contact with them.

Norwegians have learned to tough it out through coughs and colds and fevers, resorting to non-medicinal treatments and giving their bodies the time to battle the bugs and beat them all by themselves.

Now a new group of studies are proving that Norway's amazing example can be copied with relatively ease, and public health experts are saying these deaths — 19,000 in the U.S. each year alone, more than from AIDS — are unnecessary.  It's time for the CDC to take it's head out of the sand and admit that  antibiotics will not stop the wave of MRSA's that threaten to flood our hospitals. Nor will it do anything to deter other threats to our health, such as many "old diseases" that have returned wearing capes with the power to resist  antibiotics.  New Super strains are appearing like Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the resistance to the drugs we've come so heavily to rely upon is scaring even the most stalwart doctors and scientists.

As parents it is natural for us to worry about our children, and nothing is so heartbreaking to a mother or father than to watch their child cry because of a sore throat or ear ache, or suffer through fevers & chills and aches & pains, from various viruses that circulate throughout the schools and society as a whole.  We WANT to make it better.  We would do anything to fix it "RIGHT NOW".... and so we rush off to the doctor's office, or local emergency ward, returning home with a script for antibiotics.  Hence the circle continues. But waiting around for the CDC, and other major health organizations to take the lead in making the vitally necessary changes in our health care may mean that many of us will be old and grey before they even admit to the problem.  We need to be the ones to start the changes OURSELVES.

Peaceful Parenting has written an article on reducing healthcare-associated (sometimes hospital-acquired) infections (HAI). Dr.momma says:
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), at any point in time, 1.4 million people worldwide suffer from infections acquired in hospitals. As birth advocates at DrMomma.org, we know that newborns and their mothers are significantly more likely to suffer HAIs when birthed in a hospital setting than if they are birthed at home.
That's right people: Child Birth is 99% of the time NOT an emergency- so stay away from the hospital!!  If you birth your baby at home, not only will you have a much better birth, free from the stresses of a hospital environment and their policies, but you will also NOT get infected by one of these acronym laden infections!!  I gave birth in a hospital 4 times- and 3 of those times I came home sick sick sick and 2 of those times I ended up with a sick baby as well.  Stay at home!!!

Besides avoiding hospitals like the plague, there are many simple things you can do to protect your family:

-hand washing- yea yea yea, we've heard it a million times this winter during the flu season, but it really is true: washing your hands regularly with just soap and water reduces your chances of picking up contagious bacteria and viruses exponentially!
-Boosting your immune system with Vitamin D&C, probiotics, and eating a healthy diet and getting exercise
-Don't weaken your immune system by flooding it with "anti-bacterial" everything!! They don't work any better than regular soap and water and cause health problems and damage our environment!
-Staying clear of HOSPITALS!!!  Hospitals save lives, but are not the place to go if you have an upset tummy or suspect your child has an ear infection. Hospitals are for heart attacks and broken legs! If you have no choice but to go to the hospital, try to take precautions against picking up any unwanted super villains.
-Using natural ingredients to help get rid of that cold, and to also boost immunities- like honey, cinnamon, garlic- and using aromatherapy oils and simple vinegar to replace many of your cleaning products.

Be wise, be educated, and stay safe!!! And remember: There's no place like HOME!

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

New Research on Vitamin D, Cancer and boosting your health

In the past year there have been several major new studies that are showing that one way to drastically reduce your risk of cancer and countless other chronic diseases is to optimize your levels of vitamin D.

Considering the statistics that 75% to 95% of North Americans are considered to be Vitamin D deficient, it is no wonder that we are suffering from cancers and heart disease and stricken with cold and flu viruses. But don't expect Big Pharma to advertise the fact that Vitamin D is so vitally necessary to boost our health and immune system: There is no money to be made through the sale of vitamin D: it is one of the most inexpensive supplements on the market, and Sunshine is FREE!!!

More than 200 epidemiological studies and 2,500 laboratory studies, have linked Vitamin D to Cancer according to epidemiologist Dr. Cedric Garland, PH, professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine.

In these studies they have discovered that optimizing your vitamin D levels could help you to prevent at least 16 different types of cancer including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, prostate, and skin cancers and cut your risk over all of cancer by as much as 60%.

Low levels of vitamin D in your blood have long been correlated with higher risk of heart disease and heart attacks, and further, low levels of vitamin D are known to nearly double the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes.

The best way to optimize your vitamin D is through safe sun exposure. It is possible to generate about 20,000 units of vitamin D by exposing your skin to the sun. However, if you do not have access to regular sun exposure on a large portion of your bare skin, a vitamin D3 supplement may be necessary.

Based on the most recent research, the current recommendation for dosage is 35 IU’s of vitamin D per pound of body weight. So for a child weighing 40 pounds, the recommended average dose would be 1,400 IU’s daily, and for a 170-pound adult, the dose would be nearly 6,000 IU’s. However, it’s important to realize that vitamin D requirements are highly individual, and can vary greatly according to numerous factors, such as the color of your skin, your location, and how much sunshine you’re exposed to on a regular basis.


For the most up to date information about Vitamin D and its effects on our health, I HIGHLY recommend Dr. Mercola's Web site, and this article in particular:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/01/Important-New-Vitamin-D-Research-Papers.aspx


Here are some very informative studies about Vitamin D from Dr. Mercola's web site:

Vitamin D for Cancer Prevention: Global Perspective, by Cedric F. Garland, Edward D. Gorham, Sharif B. Mohr and Frank C. Garland

Ecological Studies Of Ultraviolet B, Vitamin D And Cancer Since 2000, by William B. Grant and Sharif B. Mohr

Vitamin D and Breast Cancer, by Elizabeth R. Bertone-Johnson