Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Attack on Vit. D3 - "USA Today" Misquotes Study

Panel to postmenopausal women: Don't take vitamin D, calcium

USA TODAY
Updated 6/12/2012
"...the study covered in the article only mentions that postmenopausal women shouldn't take low-doses of vitamin D combined with calcium. According to the U.S. government a "low dose" is something around 200 IUs daily -- a virtually useless quantity of vitamin D. Most nutritionists recommend 4,000 IUs daily or even more.

"So what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force really determined is that taking a ridiculously low dose of vitamin D isn't very helpful to your health. The logical conclusion from this is that people should take HIGHER doses of vitamin D which have, through hundreds of studies, been shown to help prevent cancer, increase bone mineral density, prevent kidney disease and so on...
"...the accurate headline in USA Today, if the paper actually were interested in educating and informing readers about nutrition, would be, "Postmenopausal women need higher doses of vitamin D." But instead, the headline read, "Don't take vitamin D, calcium."
With this kind of dis-information being reported, it could easily lead to the FDA banning Vitamin D3 for use in pharmaceutical drugs by prescription only.  Could this be what they're intending to do down the road?  The FDA banned stevia, an herbal sweetener, for decades while raiding manufacturers, taking their inventory, and even destroying cookbooks that mentioned stevia in the recipe.  And everybody knows about the FDA criminalizing ephedra.  And more recently, the FDA has been going after raw milk.
Mainstream media already "reported" last winter that Vitamin E could increase prostate cancer http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/11/8273189-more-bad-supplement-news-vitamin-e-may-be-risky-for-prostate?lite---then it was learned they were talking about SYNTHETIC Vitamin E, chemically-made by man, not from nature, not from whole foods, not from dietary supplements that meet the FDA standards!  http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/INFEML_Rebuttal_E_1018.htm

No comments:

Post a Comment