VITAMIN D CONTROVERSY_ PART 2

IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY,PLEASE VIEW PART ONE FIRST AS THIS WILL MAKE MORE SENSE.

Thank you. This new "finding" to me is LUDICROUS!

Thanks to mercola.com for bringing this subject to light. For more information, here's the link: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/11/vitamin-d-updat...

The Alliance for Natural Health also sounds off on this issue:
http://www.anh-usa.org/action-alert-is-the-institute-of-medicine-in-bed-with-...

Do your own research, but here's what I found concerning proper Vitamin D levels:

Levels less than 25 are disease level. Levels between 25 and 75 are suboptimal. Levels between 75 and 200 are optimal.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• vitamin D finding
• institute of medicine
• vitamins
• scientific research
• nutrition
• deficiency
• health

[JCele3]

I totally agree with you. Nice channel. I just subscribed.

[JCele3]

Thanks. Thanks for your comment. My point exactly. The Alliance of Natural Health can't obtain the document that has the official opinions--in other words, HOW each person on this committee came up with this crazy conclusion. As for G. Jones, here's a quote that I found from him on this issue: "probably don't have vitamin D deficiency" and "We think there has been an exaggeration of the public's interest in vitamin D deficiency," is an advisor for that same pharmaceutical company."

[tolenio]

Dr. Cannell had the Vitamin D Councils lawyer file for the IOM data under the freedom of information act. Not to worry, the IOM is under legal attack for the truth.

[tolenio]

You need to look at the IOM FNB panel making the vitamin D reccomendations closely. There are doctors on tht panel which say vitmain D has no use beyond bone health, who are patenting vitamin D analogs to fight cancer and autoimmune disorders.

How can the IOM say one thing and do another?

Look into panel member Glennville Jones.

This is a biased panel in my opinion who wants to ensure sales of patented vitamin D prescription analogs.