This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Vitamin D changes everything

Do you work for a co that sells Vitamin D motorway?

Seriously though i have always thought a light tan is healthy

No Prawn ( and I realize your joking )

I have seen what difference this makes in me and several others
In one case
life long psoriasis ------GONE

Others just amazing

So just sharing with the ASF community

I luvs yual allll

as always
DYOR

with lots of love
Motorway
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=another-reason-vitamin-d-is-importa-2010-03-07



Heany's quote is key to understanding Vitamin D.

Vitamin D is "THE KEY THAT UNLOCKS THE DNA LIBRARY"

It turns genes on and off at a dizzying rate.

The T cell Discovery reveals again Vitamin D in action

Before cells act they seek out vitamin D..

Such quotes as this start to make sense

Vitamin D truly is the center of the universe.
~ Dr. Russell Chesney, professor and chairman of pediatrics at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

Motorway
 
Question earlier in the thread about

Higher latitudes Vitamin D and Health...

What has changed is DIET

The Inuit (primal Diets ) and Original Tasmanians
( Seafood is only real good source of Vitamin D.. esp SEALS )
Did not have Vitamin D problems or need such pale white skins

Even so our genes still "think" they are in the Tropics
and need both adequate and stable vitamin D levels

Vitamin D is used once and then more is needed
It seems Every Time a cell needs to do something
It looks for Vitamin D



http://www.vitamind3uk.com/VitaminD_Scotland_deficiency.html





http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5663483.ece




http://www.shineonscotland.org.uk/


Motorway
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Motorway, to therefore deduce that Scotland's poor health record is purely attributable to lack of Vit D is surely stretching a very long bow?

When we are passionate about something, we find it easy to attribute what is correlation to causality when they are actually not at all interchangeable.

Def:
It may well be that the lack of Vit D does contribute to reduced overall good health, but the suggestion that the two factors imply causality is superficial and unrealistic.
 


Show us some evidence mate instead of wooly headed dreamtime assumptions.

gg
 
Show us some evidence mate instead of wooly headed dreamtime assumptions.

gg


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19197344

PLoS Genet. 2009 Feb;5(2):e1000369. Epub 2009 Feb 6.
Expression of the multiple sclerosis-associated MHC class II Allele HLA-DRB1*1501 is regulated by vitamin D.
Ramagopalan SV, Maugeri NJ, Handunnetthi L, Lincoln MR, Orton SM, Dyment DA, Deluca GC, Herrera BM, Chao MJ, Sadovnick AD, Ebers GC, Knight JC.
Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex trait in which allelic variation in the MHC class II region exerts the single strongest effect on genetic risk. Epidemiological data in MS provide strong evidence that environmental factors act at a population level to influence the unusual geographical distribution of this disease. Growing evidence implicates sunlight or vitamin D as a key environmental factor in aetiology. We hypothesised that this environmental candidate might interact with inherited factors and sought responsive regulatory elements in the MHC class II region. Sequence analysis localised a single MHC vitamin D response element (VDRE) to the promoter region of HLA-DRB1.

Sequencing of this promoter in greater than 1,000 chromosomes from HLA-DRB1 homozygotes showed absolute conservation of this putative VDRE on HLA-DRB1*15 haplotypes. In contrast, there was striking variation among non-MS-associated haplotypes. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays showed specific recruitment of vitamin D receptor to the VDRE in the HLA-DRB1*15 promoter, confirmed by chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments using lymphoblastoid cells homozygous for HLA-DRB1*15. Transient transfection using a luciferase reporter assay showed a functional role for this VDRE. B cells transiently transfected with the HLA-DRB1*15 gene promoter showed increased expression on stimulation with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (P = 0.002) that was lost both on deletion of the VDRE or with the homologous "VDRE" sequence found in non-MS-associated HLA-DRB1 haplotypes. Flow cytometric analysis showed a specific increase in the cell surface expression of HLA-DRB1 upon addition of vitamin D only in HLA-DRB1*15 bearing lymphoblastoid cells. This study further implicates vitamin D as a strong environmental candidate in MS by demonstrating direct functional interaction with the major locus determining genetic susceptibility.

These findings support a connection between the main epidemiological and genetic features of this disease with major practical implications for studies of disease mechanism and prevention.


Not for me to prove anything
anyone interested will look into this

For example Julia how far through the research links are you ?
and Garpal is this Study Proof

I mean
This Study
States

That 1) Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex trait in which allelic variation in the MHC class II region exerts the single strongest effect on genetic risk

And 2) That IT IS
is regulated by vitamin D.

The T cell research above is that Proof ?

I can only guess you did not listen to the last Heany vid
where he details some of the Random Control Trials
Mentions many others . And explains the importance of the epidemiology evidence


Again Heany in that Vid goes through the mechanism

I apologize But you are missing the point of the Thread

It is a summary of some of the exciting findings
That anyone Interested can pursue..

yes ,Julia , Your point is addressed in the literature,



But you should have seen that already ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556697

Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.
Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial.
Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP.
Osteoporosis Research Center, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68131, USA. jmlappe@creighton.edu
Erratum in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):794.
Comment in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1804-5; author reply 1805-6.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Nov;86(5):1549; author reply 1549-50.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):792-3; author reply 793-4.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):792; author reply 793-4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous observational studies have found supplemental calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are lacking.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing incident cancer risk of all types.
DESIGN: This was a 4-y, population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer incidence. The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged >55 y in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude 41.4 degrees N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400-1500 mg supplemental calcium/d alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/d (Ca + D), or placebo.

RESULTS: When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P < 0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were 0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively.

When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer risk.

CONCLUSIONS: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170.
------------------------------------------


I really do not see the point of your comments.
WHAT IS PROOF

If it is Not Random Controll Trialls + Intervention Studies + Observational Studies
and test tube Science all pointing in the same Direction ?

Either you have not read anything or you have a level of evidence above what Science
Requires ?

Everyone who is interested
DYOR
This is just a bringing to attention thread

Those not interested -- Ignore .

Others plenty of feedback and discussion by all means
but Do some research
before you say something like there is no Proof
or at least define what you mean..


Motorway
 
“Our research has married two key pieces of the puzzle. The interaction of vitamin D with the gene is very specific and it seems most unlikely to be a coincidence of any kind.”

If it was one disease well it would be nice
But it is many ( maybe all ) and the evidence in several others is even much stronger.

Garpal .. I see nothing woolly here Our research has married two key pieces of the puzzle

Julia ... They are talking about Causation

a shortage of the “sunshine vitamin” is established as a factor

With Other diseases the RCTs are already In in any case..


And has stated in the HEANY VID
Vit D regulates many genes ( GARPAL you could not have listened to it ?

Julia ?

So there is likey to be many other mechanisms identified
and not just the one...

It turns genes on and off at a dizzying rate.


Motorway




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5663483.ece



 
Motorway, the ABC's Radio National, in "The Health Report", broadcast Monday mornings and evenings, had an interesting discussion today on many so called randomised controlled trials. It is enlightening.

I happen to have a background in the area, and am only too aware of some of the very dodgy 'science' that is presented.

And no, I'm not going to spend hours trawling through dozens of links.

If I were to consider taking exogenous Vit D I would be discussing it with my doctor.
 
Motorway, to therefore deduce that Scotland's poor health record is purely attributable to lack of Vit D is surely stretching a very long bow?

Yes I agree seeing you have not read any of the material !
You would need a very long BOW indeed !


Motorway
 

You mean the one about India ?
and a small mention of some pharmaceutical RCT's

what is the relevance ?

If you had looked at any of the material I think you would have to say NONE ?

I happen to have a background in the area

Find that hard to believe
How can you comment with Authority about something without reading the material first ?
That does sound like the research in India mentioned in the Heath Report.
What I believe Garpal would call Woolly .


http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2010/3077627.htm


1) We are not talking about a Pharmaceutical that anyone can PATENT
and make lot's of $$$ ( nothing to be gained from fudging )
2) I do not think any of the studies are from India

I mean is Nebraska in India for example ?


If it is another Health matters
appreciate the Link

I will read it !

Motorway
 
The sewers of the developed world are awash with vitamins excreted by the worried well, who keep large national and multinational snake oil vitamin companies in business.

I believe that excess vitamin D has affected the Great Barrier Reef and led to the Crown of Thorns infestation.

As regards the Scottish nation, they drink to excess, are brainless to let a Libyan mass murderer free for a litre of fuel, fight at football matches and queue to watch a foreign monarch attend church every Christmas in inclement weather.

They need more than Vitamin D mate.

gg
 

 
Fine GG

Julia
It may well be that the lack of Vit D does contribute to reduced overall good health, but the suggestion that the two factors imply causality is superficial and unrealistic.

I think your inquiry into the subject is superficial and hence Your comments unrealistic.

If you read the Health Matters link
This is near the bottom


If you look at the trials on Vitamin D

They are either Government Studies like the
Or They are from leading Research Universities

eg Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

eg Department of International Health, Immunology and Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Just the two mentioned above

They are not trying to get to market some dubious drug to make a fast buck
I doubt very much if these type of Studies are what Altman is talking about.

Anyone providing proof that Vitamin D is important... Will
not profit from the research.
Because there are NO PATENTS....

But his comments are useful in a warning to beware Vitamin D analogues that some Pharmaceutical Companies are trying to Develop ) And Patent ...

The example of Tamiflu is pertinent ( In the Health Matters ) considering
The research on Vitamin D and Influenza


Here is a link to what began the Scottish initiative
It is dated 2008... The research has already moved on.

http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/reports/scotland.pdf

This thread hasn't really touched on many of the intriguing connections
Between Vitamin D and Health

As Heany stated in the Vid ( the one I posted ) it is not possible to have conflicts of interest in this field .....

Motorway
 
If you look at the trials on Vitamin D

They are either Government Studies like the

Or They are from leading Research Universities

eg Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Motorway, I don't have sufficient interest in this topic, certainly insufficient to match your messianic zeal about it, to be bothered arguing.

However, you seem unaware that before merging with Glaxo Smith Kline, Burroughs Wellcome was one of the world's largest and most successful pharmaceutical companies.

If you think universities, particularly in these cash strapped days, are not prepared to add their name to pharmaceutical company inspired research, you are naive.

And your comments do not address the remarks you have quoted from "The Health Report".

There is absolutely no guarantee that because some research says it was done under the auspices of a university or government (!) it will have enjoyed proper protocols.

I read an interesting book a few months ago, the title and author of which, regrettably I have now forgotten.

He made the absolutely simple suggestion that ALL clinical trials when commenced should be entered on an international register, with all the protocols clearly outlined before commencement, so that there is absolute transparency about the final results.

A favourite trick of the drug companies is to institute multiple trials but to simply bury those which do not produce an outcome favourable to what they are trying to represent.

If they were forced to report all findings, it would eliminate much of the sort of misrepresentation that occurs.

This is a generic suggestion and not necessarily related to Vit D.

I'd suggest not being gullible enough to think that because no patent applies to a substance, drug companies are ipso facto not interested. There are infinite possibilities for them, e.g. combining Vit D with a bone building compound such as occurs in Fosamax Plus.

Pharmaceutical companies deal in billions. They are not altruistically disposed.
If they are putting money into any sort of research, ethical or dodgy, you can be sure they are anticipating eventually reaping back their investment many times over.
 
Motorway, I don't have sufficient interest in this topic, certainly insufficient to match your messianic zeal about it, to be bothered arguing.


I think that is a fitting closure to the thread
At least for my part


Motorway
 

from: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20101227/low-vitamin-d-in-newborns-linked-to-wheezing
 
I read an interesting book a few months ago, the title and author of which, regrettably I have now forgotten.

"Dealing with Alzheimer's"
By
Dr Who?

Sorry Julia had to do it!
 
Nice post Julia.
The drug companies will throw 'out there' all kinds of 'advantages' to products, proven or not, until everyone 'believes' they should be on it - 'just in case'.
This is how the entire vitamin industry works. And it does work for them.

Let me give you guys a hint - IT'S ALL BS.

Anecdotal stories of benefit of xyz do not come close to representing truth.
You can go through your entire life without any supplements. Just eat normally.
Cavemen did it for 100000+ years.(antibiotics and hygeine and clean water extend life expectancy-not vitamins)
eg. Centrum - 'Are you feeling 100% today?'
Nobody ever feels 100% - its not in human nature to feel 100%.
'Hence we all need vitamins.'
Same goes for 'fish oil' - alot of elderly take this. Nothing proven.
Same goes for 'glucosamine' - there is NO proven benefit for glucosamine, no effect on cartilage at all.
In fact it has been disproven.
Same goes for viagara, the american middle age male population now believe they cant have sex without it. And pfizer think its their constitutional right to advertise it.
Same for echinacea and colds - not proven. Vit C and colds - not proven.
And so on.
My point is, that vitamin D is the next big thing we should all be taking, according to drug companies.
Roland if you read that article further it says - 'the findings do not establish cause and effect'. Links (such as vitamin D to wheezing in newborns) should not be interpreted as truth, although to the uneducated the difference is minimal. And how can it 'therefore' be good for adults?

Vitamin D is an important chemical, no doubt. It's involved in alot of cellular functions, but our body automatically handles it. Has been for 100,000+ years.

And there are likely a half a billion elderly people on this planet who are deficient in vitamin D, but are leading normal lives and will do so till they die. And they will never know the difference. Just because a level of vit D is called - deficient - does not mean it needs a treatment.

The entire supplement industry could fall into a black hole, and NOTHING would change.
Now go for a 5 minute walk in the sun, its a nice day.
 
I tend to agree Broadway.
There was a time when I was firmly a believer of "Natural therapies"
While I still believe an holistic approach is best and all in moderation,I am now firmly in Julia and Your court.

A very good friend of mine owned a health food store.
At 50 she was amazing--looked late 30s.
Was a feak with health from juicing to exercise to avoiding pesticides---you name it!
At 53 diagnosed with breast cancer and needed a small lump of around the size of a thumb nail removed.
She declared that she would beat the cancer naturally.
My exact words to her were that she was gambling a very high price--her life.
2 yrs later she died. Would still be alive today had she had the initial lump removed.

Of the 8 people I know who have been diagnosed with terminal cancer only one is surviving and he did not go down the "natural' therapies road.
All the others did.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...