Vitamin D  
God Versus the A.M.A.  
by Robert Barefoot

 

 

Today, as never before, the American public is being bombarded with a barrage of medical misinformation designed to make the richest industry, drugs and pharmaceuticals, even richer.  The statements either emanate (come out from a source) or are being supported by the medical prestigious (marked by illusion or trickery) American Medical Association, commonly known as the AMA.  The statements, when viewed up close, appear to be made for the protection of the public; however, when viewed as a whole form at a distance, they can be interpreted as having the opposite effect.  For example, "You don't need your gall bladder", even though it serves a useful biological function.  Not only does this statement imply that God did not know what he was doing when he created man, but also the statement gives justification for the multi billion dollar assembly line removal of over 1,000,000 gall bladders a year in America.  Another example is, "The sun is bad for you, it can cause cancer."  Not only does this statement, once again, imply that God made a mistake when he created the solar system, but it also provides support for the multi billion dollar sun block industry.  The tragedy is that, not only does the sun help the plants and animals to flourish, there is massive scientific evidence to show that the human body needs sunshine to provide good health.  Although there are dozens more examples of statements inferring that the AMA is right and God is wrong, the most devastating to human health is the statement that Vitamin-D in excess is toxic.  The measure of excess is their Recommended Daily Allowance, or RDA, which, in the case of vitamin-D, is 400 International Units (I U's) daily.  Although 400 may sound like a big number, 400 IUs of vitamin-D is less than 0.01 milligrams.  For those who do not understand just what a milligram is, a grain of salt weighs several milligrams. Thus the yearly RDA for vitamin-D designed by God is less than a grain of salt, and anything in excess of this, according to the AMA, "may be toxic".  To understand why this ridiculously low recommended consumption is devastating to human health, one must review the history of vitamin-D.  

To begin with, toxicity is defined as "the ability of a substance to cause injury to living tissue once it reaches susceptible site in or on the body". Based on this definition, almost all drugs are toxic.  However, when a doctor tells a patient that something "is toxic", almost always, the patient believes that the doctor means that "it can kill you".  Unfortunately, the doctors common referral to "too much" vitamins and minerals as toxic is more than often interpreted as meaning that they can be "lethal".  Both history and scientific studies have shown this not to be true when taken in reasonable amounts.  The question then becomes, "just what is a reasonable amount and what is too much?".  Nutritionists believe that the amounts that should be consumed are often 2 to 100 times the recommended daily allowance (RDA).  Scientific testing has shown that such amounts are both safe and effective.  However, when seeking justification for the rash toxic statements, modern medicine resorts to studies where the amounts consumed are tens of thousands of times the RDA.  Of course this is unreasonable if logic were to prevail.  

When one, studies the massive scientific documentation on tests carried out by world recognized scientists, one has to almost conclude that their has been a conspiracy to maintain the myth that vitamins and minerals can be harmful to your health.  To present this information in a form that the public could understand would take several books.  However, because of the importance of vitamin-D in the prevention of disease and aging, and because of the fact that, except for health stores, it basically remains off of the shelves, and when found, it is only in tiny amounts too small to be effective.  Examples of such studies are as follows:  

After vitamin-D was removed from the market following the toxic effects that massive doses had on seven medical students, the public, who commonly took mega doses (millions of I.U.s) daily and claimed dramatic health benefits, demanded a fair study. One of the first and largest, Further Studies on Intoxication With Vitamin-D, was done by the University of Illinois, Chicago, Annuals of Internal Medicine, Volume 10, Number 7, January 1937, and took nine years to complete.  They concluded that " Early experience with impure preparations of Vitamin D has lead to a get deal of misunderstanding and fear of over dosage on the part of those who have little acquaintance with the fundamental mechanisms involved.  Suffice it to say that most of the earlier work must be disregarded.   They also noted that both human subjects and dogs generally survive the administration of 20,000 I.U. per kilogram (14,545,000 I.U for a 160 pound man) per day for indefinite periods without intoxication."  They further concluded that,  "In view of the extensive experience in administration of vitamin-D to human subjects with a relatively low incidence of toxicity, and the correlation of the results of animal experiments with the observations on human subjects, we believe that the burden of proof now rests on those who maintain the undesirability of the use of this form (high daily doses of Vitamin D) of therapy.  

Another study, A Preliminary Report on Activated Ergosterol  (A form of High Dosage Vitamin-D in the Treatment of Chronic Arthritis), by G. Garfield Snyder, M.D., F.A.C.P., Willard H. Squires, M.D., F.A.C.P., New York State Journal of Medicine, May 1, 1940, pp 708-719, which used doses over 750 times the RDA of vitamin-D, concluded " We are inclined to agree with Reed Struck and Streck that the hazards of toxicity in high dose vitamin-D therapy have been greatly exaggerated”  as  "the degree of clinical improvement has been marked and sustained”  and  “No serious toxic manifestations were encountered.”  

Another study, Follow-up Study of Arthritic Patients Treated with Activated Vaporized Sterol, by R. Garfield Snyder, M.D., F.A.C.P., Willard H. Squires, M.D., F.A.C.P., New York State journal of Medicine, December, 1941 concluded that "the use of high doses of activated Vitamin-D is not associated with any more danger than is usually encountered with other accepted forms of therapy.”