Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Canada orders vitamin D study

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:33 PM EDT 21/05/08

Review to probe whether deficiency could be linked to deadly diseases ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Commander Groovechild from Canada writes: I want to believe that elevated doses of Vitamin D can promote good health. It makes sense for bodies to be regulated at least in part by sunlight. It would be a sad joke for nature not to adapt to prolonged lack of sunlight. I think with the cost of gasoline and other fuels increasing and the likelihood of higher urban densities, more of us will be in buildings for longer periods of time. If Vitamin D can help us cope with this new reality, we should find out as soon as possible.
  2. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: Ever since I learned that Vitamin D can help you if you don't get enough sun, I've actually had a much greater quality of life. Winter time has always been hard for me, but now I can function on a more "normal" level. If it has greater benefits, then that would be a lovely bonus.

    I do disagree that Vitamin D should be used as a replacement for sunlight, as Commander Groovechild seems to suggest. I think that businesses should be required by law to have windows, to let sunlight in to their offices or whatever all year round. It would save on electricity, sure, but it would keep the emotional health of the workers up, which would certainly make the workers happy. I've got to take "smoke breaks" just to go outside during the day and get sunlight, and I don't smoke. Try telling your boss you need to go outside for ten minutes to get some sun and air.....usually they say no without hesitation. That has to change.
  3. Bernard Bomers from Canada writes: Health Canada is a joke.

    Starting with an engrained bureaucracy of "lifers", right up to careerists at the level of Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers, led by a a Mike Harris reject for a Minister.

    NOW they are finally ANNOUNCING that by the Fall they MIGHT commission serious studies into their ESTABLISHED standards as it affects PREVENTION in the matter of Vitamin "D" (as in "Dummies") and various recently reported, ELSEWHERE, applications to remedy SAD, depressions, Various and many cancers etc. etc.....

    The Joke is on the Canadian sick, brought to you by an unmotivated, stoopid Federal Operation. "Official"

    Who can have ANY respect or Faith.......
  4. Will Henry from Canada writes: Health Canada is a shambles and under minister Tony Clement, who still owns 25% the pharmaceutical company Prudential Chem Inc. With the absurd regulations proposed in his Bill C-51, we may not even be able to buy vitamin D without a prescription. Stop Bill C-51!!!
  5. Sue W from Canada writes: How many studies on Vitamin D already exist?

    Health Canada should try googling for the information. I'm sure they'll find what they're looking for.
  6. J L from Gophers Tail Saskatchewan, Canada writes: There's certainly nothing to lose for at least looking into the matter,I for one have been taking One, 1000 UI's tablet daily and if nothing else it clearly has Increased the calcium intake into my body.My finger and toe nails have improved substantially.It is also beneficial for those who do not get a lot of exposure to the sun for any number of reasons.So in summary I agree with the Health depts. initiative on this file.
  7. 20 20 from Canada writes: "Deep Integration" and the SPP are the greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty and democracy there is right now. As this latest example makes quite clear, we no longer make our own decisions even with regard to the vital health of Canadians, but now defer even that to Washington.

    Last year, also under the Harper government and also as a result of SPP "harmonization", the pesticide food residue levels that is allowed in the produce we eat was raised to "harmonize" with the US' more lax standards.

    It is one thing to scientifically collaborate and share knowledge between countries, it is another thing to completely abdicate our own independent science and research, nationally/geographically-relevant guidelines, and important decisions on our own well-being.

    Our independent country is gradually and steadily being "harmonized" away by the SPP and its Deep Integration agenda.
  8. Henry Wysmulek from Winnipeg, writes: This is what happens when civil servants run the country.
  9. Dr Demento from Canada writes: "Vitamin D toxicity can result from regular excess intake of this vitamin, and may lead to hypercalcemia and excess bone loss. Individuals at particular risk include those with hyperparathyroidism, kidney disease, sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, or histoplasmosis. Chronic hypercalcemia may lead to serious or even life-threatening complications, and should be managed by a physician."

    http://tinyurl.com/2ypewz
  10. Wayne Mak from Vancouver, Canada writes: Some very capable medical people and the literature I have reviewed supports the thesis that Canadians would benefit from an increased vitamin D intake. Dr. Demento has raisied an unnecessary alarm bell. Dose makes the poison and toxicity data show that toxicity is manifested only at gross intakes:

    Vitamin D 1000 μg (40,000 IU)/day produces toxicity within 1 to 4 mo in infants
    In adults, taking 1250 μg (50,000 IU)/day for several months can produce toxicity
  11. Dr Demento from Canada writes: Wayne Mak; you are correct. Vitamin D toxicity only results from extreme overdose over long time periods.
  12. M. Brockington from Vancouver, Canada writes:
    I look forward to the day when our national anthem will be harmonized with that of the United States. Economic efficiences are sure to follow.
  13. William Grant from San Francisco, United States writes: The proposed study is great news, and I am delighted that Canada is taking the lead in moving this program forward. At a recent seminar, 4 experts on vitamin D presented their latest views on vitamin D. The consensus was that 2000-4000 IU of vitamin D3/day are recommended for optimal health, 6000 IU/day for pregnant or lacting women. The presentations can be found at www.grassrootshealth.org, hit seminar, then presentations. In addition, much information on vitamin D can be found at www.pubmed.gov searching using keywords.
  14. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Sue W asked: "How many studies on Vitamin D already exist?" The answer appears to be that the evidence supporting the alleged benefits of much higher vitamin D intake is far from conclusive. Further studies are appropriate in this case; we need better scientific data if Health Canada is to raise the recommended intake. This is in contrast to knee-jerk reactions to isolated studies that show some link between a disease and some factor that get blown out of proportion by the press, causing alarmism, public policy shifts, and changes in population behaviour, before further studies discredit the link and show that the original suggestion caused vastly more suffering than benefit. Higher vitamin D intake may reduce cancer rates, but we don't know that yet, and we have to get a better answer to the question before Health Canada starts telling people to change their diets.
  15. William Grant from San Francisco, United States writes: As to studies showing that vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer, see these papers, with abstracts at www.pubmed.gov: Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Rimm EB, Hollis BW, Fuchs CS, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC.Prospective study of predictors of vitamin D status and cancer incidence and mortality in men. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Apr 5;98(7):451-9. Garland CF, Garland FC, Gorham ED, Lipkin M, Newmark H, Mohr SB, Holick MF. The role of vitamin D in cancer prevention. Am J Public Health. 2006 Feb;96(2):252-61. Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Grant WB, Giovannucci EL, Lipkin M, Newmark H, Holick MF, Garland FC. Vitamin D and prevention of breast cancer: Pooled analysis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007;103(3-5):708-11. (7 ISI, 10 GS) Garland CF, Grant WB, Mohr SB, Gorham ED, Garland FC. What is the dose-response relationship between vitamin D and cancer risk? Nutr Rev. 2007 Aug;65(8 Pt 2):S91-5. Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91. Ding EL, Mehta S, Fawzi WW, Giovannucci EL. Interaction of estrogen therapy with calcium and vitamin D supplementation on colorectal cancer risk: reanalysis of Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. Int J Cancer. 2008 Apr 15;122(8):1690-4. Pilz S, Dobnig H, Winklhofer-Roob B, Riedmüller G, Fischer JE, Seelhorst U, Wellnitz B, Boehm BO, März W. Low Serum Levels of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Predict Fatal Cancer in Patients Referred to Coronary Angiography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 May 7. [Epub ahead of print]
  16. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: A few months ago I read an article about Vitamin D. the results were inconclusive but all the researchers interviewed took about 8000 IU's daily.
    They can't prove it but ...
  17. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: If rickets is caused by a deficiency of vitamin D, why is it that rickets is still rampant in Africa and other places where children run around naked in the sun every day? The truth is that they are deficient in calcium, and no amount of sunshine or vitamin D in supplement form can compensate for that deficiency.

    The same is true with respect to cancer, bone loss in the elderly etc. Benefits are seen only when vitamin D is combined with calcium, and in some cases other essential nutrients, but not when vitamin D is given alone. And indeed, vitamin D in isolated form can do harm at very low doses.

    According to the vitamin D promoters - a small but vociferous group - virtually everyone, everywhere, is deficient in vitamin D, regardless of lifestyle or latitude. These claims have been challenged by numerous researchers, and countered by a great many studies, but the public media invariably go along with the hype, ignoring all contrary views, thereby encouraging huge numbers of people to self-medicate with a hormone-like substance which can have some very serious "rogue" effects.

    Enjoy the sunshine, enjoy good food. Forget the magic pills.
  18. Chris W from Toronto, Canada writes: What are you talking about? What "very serious 'rogue' effects"? At what dosage(s)? How many people have experienced such "very serious 'rogue' effects" over the past decade?

    Now apply the same questions to that notorious COX-2 inhibitor that we all (use to) love, Vioxx. Clearly, pharmaceutical drugs are the answer!

    NOT.

    Please stop this baseless, nonsensical, unscientific fear mongering against a proven orthomolecular remedy.

    In a free society, people should be able to choose their medical treatment, be it reactive or proactive (preventative). I fear that this action being taken by our government- in conjunction with the rush to pass Bill C-51- may be a veiled attempt to effectively ban all supplements, with the coming Codex Alimentarius regulations to take effect on the last day of 2009. If you think this is a conspiracy theory, please read up on it. Vitamin supplements have already been effectively banned in several European countries. This must not be allowed to happen here.
  19. Donald Wilson from Debert, NS, Canada writes: Since I began taking 1000 IU of vitamin D a day , I feel that I am in a better mood as winter matures - I have more energy and ambition . My imagination ? I don't know and don't care, just so long as when spring arrives I don't have to wait for my ambition to return. I am getting along in years and a side benefit appears to be stronger bones . That might save me the grief of broken bones in senior years - something that has happened to the generation preceding me in our family . It seems logical that there be additional benefits to supplemental intake of vit D - and I will soon go to 2000IU a day by next fall as the sunlight shortens . So much of the food we eat thinking that it is full of the vitamins and minerals we need to maintain good health , is deficient in that . Factory farming methods tend to reduce those vitamins and minerals . But by how much ? This is what a study needs to be done on so that we can have some guide as to how much to take in supplemental form . And our national standards need to reduce the pesticides in the food we eat - not increase it . Testing needs doing on vegetables and fruits grown in the USA and Mexico at time of importation , as well as on crops ready for market within Canada. The cost to quality of life, and to our health care system , is too great to continue to ignore these questions and standards .
  20. sheila valentine from Canada writes: It is interesting some people cannot process their vitamins from food and do need supplements and minerals but taking extra ones would assume would only help those who do not have adequate system balance like the ill or elderly.If the Doctor confirms low in one and you need a boost go for it if not are you subjecting the system to imbalance by upping the one.Always check with the Doctor to see if side effects go with what you take.Each person is unique with individual needs and one size does not fit all for all needs.
  21. Robert Mason from Kingston, Canada writes: Fortunately most people with commonsense will pay no attention to Health Canada. They could be a great benefit to Canadians given the right oversight and management. As it is this Vitamin D episode reveals just how behind and out of touch with reality Health Canada is. The Food Guide is another example - why don't they get some decent nutritional
    expertise and take a lead in preventative medicine for a change? Meanwhile we will continue to enjoy the proven benefits of Vitamin D.
  22. Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: Will Henry from Canada writes: Health Canada is a shambles and under minister Tony Clement, who still owns 25% the pharmaceutical company Prudential Chem Inc. With the absurd regulations proposed in his Bill C-51, we may not even be able to buy vitamin D without a prescription. Stop Bill C-51!!!
    Posted 10/05/08 at 9:43 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

    If the above comment is true, which I don't doubt, then for all in tense and purposes the RCMP slipped up on doing their job here
    didn't they???
    Thought you could not have a position where there is total "conflict
    of Interest"????Oh! I forgot the country is not run that way.
    The old mottto is "it's all in who you know, not what you know"!!!!
  23. Ghism Prescott from Canada writes: Just over a month ago, I got my 6 month blood screening. What was different this time was that my GP added a Vitamin D screening (for all his patients) after attending a lecture on Vitamin D deficiencies. As I live in SW Ontario, this area is of particular interest as the winter months although milder than the rest of Canada are incredibly gloomy. Normally after I get my blood tests done I follow up with the GP a number of weeks later but one day after the tests I get a call from his office. Highly unusual as his facility is not known for efficiency. So I go in and he reads out a marginal PSA test and then scrolls down to the bottom of the lab results and highlighted in red is my Vitamin D # - 14. I should be in the 80's at the very least for someone my age (44). He prescribed 3000 I.U.'s daily. No side effects to this point.
  24. Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: This is only a small part of C-51:would also allow federal enforcement agents to: Raid your home or business without a warrant, seize your bank acounts, levy fines up to $5million & jail terms up to 2 years for selling or drying herbs in your kitchen, now categorized as "controlled activity", confiscate your property, then charge you storage fees. STOP BILL-C-51!!!!
  25. looking on from Canada writes: Enough is a good thing but too much may not be so good. Tallk to your Doctor>
  26. J L from Canada writes: Yes by all means contact your doctor.I personally am taking a 1000UI Vitamin D tablet daily. Health Canada says anything over 2000 is the maximum.As in so many things in life common sense should be used and by all means contact your doctor or for that matter call any medical practitioner for advise.or go to the Health Canadia web site and in the contact section Type in Vitamin D Supplements for Adults.
  27. Comments closed, censored, deleted or made to disappear from Mini Bushland, Canada writes: "Talk to your doctor"? -- In my experience, because of the way they have been trained in the West, doctors (even the best) have minimal knowledge (if any) of vitamins, more particularly of the effects of vitamin deficiencies on human health, taking the Canadian climate into account. Because of that, in general, they simply will not even listen to any claim that vitamin supplements seem to have worked, in one's case, even if that seems to have been the case over long periods of time. (That reminds me of the old, sometimes dishonest controversy against Dr. Linus Pauling, on vitamin C). --- The doctors who have treated me, in recent years and until no, (they were/are considered really amongst the best in their field), have moved, at best, from saying "there is no scientific evidence those vitamin supplements work" to "well, your taking those vitamin supplements cannot do you any harm"... Mind you, that is a positive change... In my own case, after taking a daily dose of 2000 units of vitamin D, this last year, I have noticed that almost all traces of a mild form of psoriasis, on different parts of my body, have simply disappeared for the first time, last winter: no need to use those creams with cortisone anymore! When I mentioned that to my dermatologist ("... just for the record, so you know..."), she did not even comment on the supplements as such, insisting only that I needed to sunbathe approximately 15 minutes every day... She did not seem to remember having told me, previously, that this was very difficult for anyone to do during the winter, and the whole year in my case, given my history of basocellular skin cancers... --- "Speak to your doctor"? By all means... but I have concluded that is my body, my health, and as long as it seems to work for me without any potentially dangerous side effects... I consider it is for me to decide, ultimately, even without the full support of "my" medical team... I fully intend to continue moving forward in that direction!
  28. norm shea from port elgin, Canada writes: soon due to BILL 50 it will be illegal to posses vitamin B,A,C etc because they will need years of clinical testing to get approval but since all vitamins are natuarly occuring nobody can get a patent on them so nobody will pay for approval testing. The medical and pharmasutical regimes are generaly against supplements because it cuts into their profits.Many years ago when i had a docter iwas told all that supplemnts do is make your pee yellow.All i have today to keep my health is supplements. Without them i would probably be DEAD.
  29. hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: may because some people get so much care and vitamin D or C or F....and some others straggling with own life, more spending money on fancy project , TV now have nice move about Canada exactly we see channel 29 in BC this move is great
  30. Random Person from Heard and Mc Donald Islands writes: You had better be sure,or people will take it and then find out that it will kill them etc...!!!
  31. Antonio San from Canada writes: BPA and now Vitamin D, Canada is really unlucky: next carbon tax?
  32. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: John Deriso, glass does not transmit UV light and, hence, there would be no value to windows in terms of Vitamin D synthesis. There appears to be no risk to taking the supplements and a potential big gain. This is one chemoprevention strategy that has the potential to have a bigger impact on disease than most. As for "natural" medicines and Bill C-51, there is a widely propagated myth about "natural" medicines (natural=good, synthetic=bad). The reality is that with natural medicines, you often take in mixture of toxins and medicines. For this reason, synthetic and its associated purity is a better approach. The alternative health industry is one of the biggest scams going.
  33. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: First it was "stay out of the sun, you'll get cancer" now it's "stay in the sun, or you'll get cancer".
  34. Michele . from Edmonton, Canada writes: Well, I've suffered from a strange allergy (December..May) for the past three winters, which results in itchiness that has only be resolved by taking antihistamines (one per week). In February I started taking vitamin D supplements (6000IU/day) and I haven't had to take an antihistamine since then (prior to that, when it got bad, my eyelids were itchy, the bottoms of my feet were itchy, my neck, my ribs, my scalp...).

    Now that I'm getting more sunlight, I've dropped it to 4000IU/day, and I'll probably discontinue in about a month. But I'm totally believing that vitamin D deficiency was at least partly to blame for my symptoms.
  35. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: I think that I'll drink a glass of low fat milk.
  36. G. Triver from langley, Canada writes: TO ALL READERS...I'm a Ph.D. who has followed the extraordinary epidemiological story of Vitamin D3 for years before its effects made it to the front pages. Martin Mittelstaedt has done an extraordinary service to public health in his long series of articles on D3 over time. The evidence has been solid for ages, and culminated in the Creighton University study released last june, involving over 1000 women over a 4 year period, half of whom received a mere 1100 I.U./day of D3. Reductions across all levels of cancer were ~60% in that group--and ~70% after weeding out the first year's stats. My brother is an epidemiologist/public health doc in Cal., my nephew a Ph.D. (Scripps Institute) cancer researcher in Oregon. D3 isn't really a vitamin--its a hormone precursor, and virtually every cell in your body evolved with D3 receptors. ***When the Cancer Society comes knocking on your door for $$$, ask their unpaid army of volunteers why they can't afford a simple piece of paper to those they seek money from, recommending at least 2000 I.U./day. A crime. No room here, so do this: in Google, plug in: Vitamin D Cancer and you'll find hundreds of studies, direct links to medical abstracts. The evidence is consistent at dosages over 1000 I.U./day, but older people need more. We don't know what is optimal even now. ALSO--check out the front page lead story in the NOVEMBER 2007 issue of Scientific American by White on D3's role in cancer prevention--his lab is at McGill University, and the paper is coauthored with a female researcher. Also: go to www.thevitamindcouncil.com run by Dr. John Cannell where you will find a wealth of direct links to medical abstracts and fascinating articles. I am the harshest critic of airy fairy new age claims--the science IS in with D3 and has been for years. The quip of researchers is: "Linus Pauling was right, but was off by one letter." Cats lick themselves continuously to derive D3--as do nearly ALL animals. Even reptiles require it.
  37. Canadian Woman from Canada writes: Everyone mentions the old qualifier "Talk to your Doctor". Most medical schools in Canada offer two to six HOURS of nutrition teaching during a six year program! It is extremely unlikely that your doctor will know as much about nutrition as many average mothers, unless s/he has, for some reason, taken a particular personal interest in educating her/him self about the subject. You do need to find out if certain vitamins or herbs will interact poorly with prescription medications that you are on. After researching it yourself, talk to your pharmacist who is usually much better informed about these interactions. Do your own research, start readiong the excellent medical abstracts suggested by G. Triver here, & consult with naturopaths, etc.. But to depend on your family physician for accurate information about vitamins & minerals is, as a rule, a foolish exercise in futility.
  38. Martin Reid from Hamilton, Canada writes: Well perhaps cats licking improves their quality of life but how long to cats live?
  39. Ghism Prescott from Canada writes: At least 9 lives by my count, Martin.
  40. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: A few vitamin D basics: Much of what is known about this vitamin is very recent, and most objective researchers agree that forcing it on consumers by adding it to essential foods, or recommending supplements for everyone, is not justified based on current knowledge. Nonetheless, retinol - along with D2 or more recently D3 - has been added to milk in the U.S. for more than half a century, including low fat and skim milk. Higher risks for cancer have been linked to low fat and skim milk, but not whole milk, and it appears that the retinol in these defatted products may be responsible for this "rogue effect." These are fat soluble vitamins, after all, and neither exists in any natural food alone or without fat. With all the focus on whole foods these days, it seems odd that we're still treating the various dietary components as either desirable or undesirable, and trying to avoid some while overdosing on others. Nature is just not to be trusted, it would appear, even by the "health freaks." Bear in mind that it takes only a few minutes in the sun to produce all the vitamin D one needs, and the vitamin is stored and released as required at other times. Daily sun exposure is not necessary to maintain desirable levels of this vitamin. What constitutes deficiency is a matter of hot debate. Low serum levels during the winter months are considered a sign of insufficiency by some, but considered normal by others. The body has remarkable abilities to adjust to varying levels of sunlight exposure. Even the strongest vitamin D proponents agree on this.
  41. Hart Oldenburg from winnipeg, Canada writes: Health Canada? To study what? Two years ago, frustrated over their obesity ignorance, I suggested, in this very paper, to have present bureaucrats put on early retirement, regardless of age. Is this why no name Bennet engaged 7000 Canadians for four years to concocted another idiotic food guide?

    Vitamin D? Never had a call for it, alike all other supplements, medicine, only vitamin "S" from a Scotch bottle.
  42. David Not so New Immigrant from Fredericton, Canada writes: Since being diagnosed with B-Cell Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia last year, I started taking 1000 UI vitamin D as a personal choice. I have never been one for medical fads,. But it is amazing how a diagnosis changes your outlook on medical options!

    I have always been prone to heavy chest colds since as long as I can remember. This last winter I missed my usual flu jab, and despite my family all suffering with the flu, I haven't had a single cold.

    Is this evidence of of Vitamin D boosting the immune system who knows but I do know my white blood cell count hasnt changed in the year and I am now on what is euphemistically called "Watch and Wait". Time to get back to getting on with Life and keep popping the Vit D tablets.
  43. Rusty Brown from Cobourg, Ontario, Canada writes:
    I am much encouraged by the comments I read here. I no longer trust the government to keep me safe, my doctor to keep me well, or the hospital to cure my ills. Thanks to the internet, we can now do our own research on health matters and take responsibility for our own well-being (including spotting the misleading and selfserving dross that is so prevalent on the net).

    But what are we going to do about this C-51 disaster?! Don't take away my supplements just when I start to need them the most!

    BTW: can we agree that it's not "health care" at all? It's "illness care" and the sooner we start calling it that, the sooner we will start working to prevent illnesses instead of dealing with them.

    RB

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top