Popular Rationalism

Share this post

Vitamin D and Cancer Risk

popularrationalism.substack.com

Discover more from Popular Rationalism

Logic. Reason. Science.
Over 19,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in

Vitamin D and Cancer Risk

In 2009, FDA make a mathematical error. In 2013, they were called out. It's 2022 and they still have not corrected their mistake.

James Lyons-Weiler
Jan 21, 2022
107
Share this post

Vitamin D and Cancer Risk

popularrationalism.substack.com
48
Share

If you ask doctors or nutritionists what the upper safe level of dietary supplementation of Vitamin D is, you’ll hear something like 400-600 IU per day. But that’s actually the FDA’s daily recommended dosage, not the upper safe limit - and that dosage and the FDA’s understanding of a safe limit is too low. Their estimates are flawed by errors.

According to Drs. Carol and Keith Baggerly, a mother and son team, FDA made a series of blunders in their determination of a safe level of Vitamin D supplementation. They communicated these blunders to the public health community in 2016/2017 with a presentation by Keith as public health meeting, and in a post at the Vitamin D Wiki at vitamindwiki.com. This website includes a compendium of studies on the effects of Vitamin sufficiency on scores of medical conditions, notably cancer (233 studies) and COVID-19 (750 studies) and a ton of information you might find useful. (They advise very high VitD doses every two weeks, which other say should be brought down & dosed daily).

In 2022, it’s time to force the FDA to do the rightthing and update their guidance and recommendation on daily vitamin D uptake. I envision a revised FDA guidance that that specifically addresses the issues Drs. Baggerly and others have raised and a new guidance that considers latitude and seasonality. We now know the importance of balancing higher doses of D with A and K. It should be drafted by Drs. Baggerly.

Here’s a summary diagram from vitamindwiki.com which links to the page on the FDA’s errors. We need every US Senator to be informed that the FDA needs to be taken by the hand down the corridors of objective science and be forced to issue a revised guidance. How you get this information to your Senator is up to you: emails would likely be best, followed by a phone call.

Please share this important information about the increased risk of so many adverse health conditions due to low D w/your friends & family, as well as with your physicians.

Contact Your Senator

Leave a comment

Give a gift subscription

Share

Share Popular Rationalism

107
Share this post

Vitamin D and Cancer Risk

popularrationalism.substack.com
48
Share
Previous
Next
48 Comments
Share this discussion

Vitamin D and Cancer Risk

popularrationalism.substack.com
Martha
Jan 21, 2022

Thanks for bringing the Vitamin D range of 40ng/ - 60ng/ml to the forefront. I first read about it at Lew Rockwell: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/10/joseph-mercola/dr-mercolas-2021-biohacking-lecture/. I wish the Baggerlys had been credited for picking up the FDA error in that article, which includes the following link to GrassrootsHealth, where you can get a test for your Vitamin D levels: https://www.grassrootshealth.net/. There is also a Vitamin D calculator at that website.

Another Lew Rockwell article on Vitamin D, with many links: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/11/bill-sardi/the-promise-perils-of-vitamin-d/

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
1 reply
Jerome V
Jan 21, 2022·edited Jan 21, 2022Liked by James Lyons-Weiler

Great post! Apparent typos:

do the write thing

do the right thing

FDA needs to be take by the hand down the corridors

FDA needs to be taken by the hand down the corridors

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
6 replies by James Lyons-Weiler and others
46 more comments...
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 James Lyons-Weiler
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing