Comments on: Vitamin D Testing: What the Government Giveth, It Taketh Away

By: Linda Chen

Linda Chen — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:30:58 +0000

In reply to Dr. Savin; D3 bottles do label the IU/capsule. Perscription D is unfortunately D2 (unless changed w/i the past yr). D2 is the “unnatural” form which is less bioaviable. I have seen D3 capsules as high as 10,000 IU.

As for varying results, that occurs with prescription & non-perscription drugs. I am assuming my particular brand of D3 labels the dosage honestly.

By: Andrew Savin MD

Andrew Savin MD — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:31:27 +0000

I have measured many D levels before and after supplementing with 1-2000 IU of OTC a day and find extremely variable results.

Even in the most compliant of patients some have had DROPS in the levels even though they take it. FDA dose not regulate how much D3 is actually in the caps so buyer and doctor beware!

I think following serum levels is the best way to go. Most patients need a prescription if the are below 20 for example.

By: Donald L. Smith

Donald L. Smith — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:34:26 +0000

It appears that a daily 2,000 IU vitamin D supplement will be given (which is good) but I can’t find any information regarding whether or not the blood level of vitamin D (25-OH-D) will be (a) measured at the start to establish a baseline; (b) at regular intervals during the 5 year study; and, (c) at the end of the study. Without this “dose/response” information, this expensive study will (IMHO) be a waste of time and money.

It seems to me that the study should establish “target” levels of 25-OH-D (i.e., 50, 100, 150 and 200 nmol/L) and then adjust the dose to attain/sustain those levels.

In addition, there doesn’t seem to be any interest in looking at whether or not UVR-induced vitamin D is superior, inferior or the same as supplement-induced.

But then, given the fact that the IOM vitamin D committee failed to include any of the acknowledged vitamin D experts, why should the limitations of this study be surprising.

By: mike

mike — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:32:29 +0000

To Paul Epner
The link between cancer rates and vitamin D deficiency was first proposed in 1980 by Garland. Since that time, 60 epidemiology studies have supported the hypothesis, a double blind placebo study confirmed up to a 77% reduction in cancer incidence for those on vitamin D supplements and two years ago the Canadian Cancer Society started recommended that everyone take vitamin D to prevent cancer. Experts on vitamin D will tell you the extent of the data on vitamin D preventing cancer is now as extensive as the data on smoking causing cancer. Correcting vitamin D deficiency is now so well accepted it is almost part of standard medical care. If your primary care physician does not check you levels it’s time to get a new doctor! At this late stage, NIH wants to start a placebo controlled study to prove that correcting a deficiency is good for you. (We are all deficient thanks to that other great piece of advice to stay out of the sun at all costs) Even worse, the study will probably come out negative because who in their right mind would stay on placebo for years and deliberately remain deficient. Someone missed the boat on this one!!!

By: P. Fisher

P. Fisher — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:38:46 +0000

…. And then there is the study published in the December 2008 issue of Military Medicine showing that veteerans with a vitamin D deficiency requird $3,262 more medical care annually than non-deficient veterans. Deficiency was defined as a 25(OH)D level less than 20 ng/ml. 40.5% of the group were deficient. Attaining vitamin D sufficiency in the population is a potential financial disaster for those who profit from disease.

By: Paul L. Epner

Paul L. Epner — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:46:45 +0000

Rather than being a mixed message, I think their actions are very consistent. Most payers, public and private, are using the lack of evidence for a practice as a good reason to put the brakes on fads that are, in many cases, driven by businesses who derive profits from those fads. It is not surprising that payers are seeking to slow down the expense growth you described, but given the interest by the public, I can also understand their interest in developing an evidence-base to drive future policy. This is one more example of where laboratories need to get engaged in the development of best practices and comparative effectiveness studies. It may be the single most important thing we can do to reach alignment with payers on the importance of appropriate reimbursement for laboratory services.

By: Ted Hutchinson

Ted Hutchinson — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:45:46 +0000

Generally speaking it takes 1000iu/daily/D3 to raise vitamin d status 10ng/ml 25nmol/l.
However, for people with an inflammatory condition, such as celiac disease, it may take twice that amount.
We know for certain that people with a 25(OH)D status below 50nmol/l 20ng/ml have double the death rate compared to people with a 25(OH)D above 100nmol/l 40ng/ml. So raising status above 50ng 125nmol/l will lower inflammatory status an improve life expectancy.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:54:53 +0000

The ideal serum concentration of activated Vitamin D3 is at least 50ng/ml. Get some beneficial rays from the sun and find a new doctor who understands the critical importance of Vitamin D. And supplement if you do not feel comfortable with direct sun- even though this is the natural way to go.

Vitamin D deficiency is America’s #1 health crisis by a wide margin. It is directly liked to most cancers, all of heart didease, diabetes, MS, Mac Degen, depression, shcizophrenia, dementia,muscle weakness, and autism- just to mention a few.