Negative article on Vitamin D

The last paragraph of the article:

A big study she is helping lead is testing whether higher levels lower the risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, memory loss, depression, diabetes, bone loss or other problems. Nearly 26,000 people have been taking 2,000 units of D-3 (the most active form of vitamin D, also known as cholecalciferol) or dummy pills every day for five years. Results are expected in early 2018.

The results should be very interesting.

Yes I believe this is the same study that Dr. Cannell was interested in when I asked him during the Q/A session on Reddit:


load5150 1 point 2 months ago


I know there are numerous Vitamin D trials ongoing. What are some of the Vitamin D clinical trials that you are interested in seeing the results from? I see there is a trial at John Hopkins involving 1200 patients for fall prevention but its not expected to finish until late 2019.


[–]vitamindcouncil 3 points 2 months ago


The one I'm most interested in is the VITAL study at Harvard. It has 20,000 subjects and, while inadequate, they are using 2,000 IU/day


[–]vitamindcouncil 2 points 2 months ago


We are watching for results from the VITAL study at Harvard that is using 2,000 IU/day on 10,000 subjects together with 10,000 controls. I have been hoping they have to stop the trial early because of an effect was seen but nothing so far.

Hello,
I have said that there are some correlations between some Vitamins. OPK must have found "the formula" between Vitamin D and some co-vitamins (co-factors). Just keep an eye to that following short thesis. I am long but I think thats important.


Short thesis from SA - Comments seekingalpha.com/article/4021970-opko-health-significant-growth-potential-fda-approval

"....What we are talking about is the relationship between Parathyroid hormone, activated vitamin D, and serum calcium and phosphate levels. This is very tricky stuff.

The guidelines now, especially from the kidney people, are very liberal (or conservative, depending how you look at it) and recommend some sort of action pre-emptively if the GRF is less than 60, which defines Class 3 renal failure. Any elevation of PTH is regarded as being renal related and this is what the Dermatologist Frost and his company are banking on with Rayaldee- a functional analogue of activated vitamin D- when running their projections. Why even wait for a rise in PTH? GFR less than 60, blast away with Rayaldee!

But, in fact, the vast majority of people in class 3 failure with an elevated PTH will have primary hyperparathyroidism- not secondary- and will need to be evaluated by a surgeon. And should be.
When faced with the economic realities of an incredibly expensive therapy for a condition that hasn't developed yet, the Kidney specialists are likely to refine and narrow the target group- and quickly.

For all practical purposes, secondary Hyperthyroidism only occurs with a low serum calcium level. PTH responds with beefing up the extraction of calcium from bones to the serum to maintain homeostasis as calcium is an important electrolyte. To a lesser degree, PTH also responds to an increase in serum Phosphate levels- but this is seen only late in class 4 failure.
Activated vitamin D- and Rayaldee presumably- have nothing to do with PTH itself, but act on the intestines to increase the absorption of calcium. Indirectly, they can decrease the PTH levels by normalizing a low calcium level.

Serum phosphorus bonds with calcium to form precipitates, and so a high phosphorus level as is seen with decreasing renal function also adds to the pressure on serum calcium. Of course, activated Vit D is naturally made due to an enzyme produced by the kidney- levels of which which fall as the nephrons die and the patients heads towards dialysis.

From a practical standpoint, there CANNOT be secondary hyperparathyroidism if the calcium and phosphorus levels are normal. This will be the case for ALL people in stage 3 renal failure, and most of those in stage 4 renal failure. Any isolated elevation in PTH, as I said, is likely due to a parathyroid tumor.

What I can see happening if a very very expensive activated vitamin D analogue becomes available is that the current guidelines will be drastically altered. For those in renal failure, tracking GFR will be augmented with closely following the serum calcium and serum phosphorus levels. The expensive drug Rayaldee will only be authorized when the phosphorus levels begin to rise-but even then there will be a debate if a low-phosphate diet and inexpensive phosphate binders (which bond phosphorus in the intestines and cause it to be excreted in the feces) should be the first line therapy- and maybe the only therapy until calcium levels fall.

So realistically, assuming a normally functioning parathyroid gland, Rayaldee will become a viable option only when the serum calcium level falls due to inadequate production of activated vitamin D, which happens late in class 4 renal disease and is present in all dialysis patients.

And even then there will be debate over if it adds that much over the diet/phosphate binder approach. Complicating things is that dialysis patients usually have several other serious conditions and so a relatively high mortality rate. A controlled study of significance will be devilishly difficult to put together.
How's that for a short thesis?...."

In 2008 or so there were only 2,000 and a little more studies about vitamin D. 50 years forgotten vitamin D (which is a hormone). Now some couple of thousands studies out. This trend is beginning to emerge.

@sgard. There are a lot more answers. It is important to show the "other side" of opinions. The best way of learning.