IOM's Support for Minimal Vitamin D Based on Gaping Flaw

The inherent flaw in the IOM's Vitamin D report is so egregious and dishonest that there's no explanation other than that it's intentional.

by Heidi Stevenson

7 December 2010

The Institute of Medicine's recent report claiming that only a minimal amount of Vitamin D is required for good health, and that too much is toxic, is based on a study with a gaping flaw. It's so bad that the entire study is meaningless, and one must truly wonder if the committee members responsible think we're a bunch of blooming idiots out here.

The report's shortcoming appears in the very beginning, on the first page of the Introduction to the chapter entitled "Overview of Vitamin D".⁽¹⁾ The second paragraph contains the following:

Both vitamin D₃ and vitamin D₂ are synthesized commercially and found in dietary supplements or fortified foods. The D₂ and D₃ forms differ only in their side chain structure. The differences do not affect metabolism (i.e., activation) and both forms function as prohormones. When activated, the D₂ and D₃ forms have been reported to exhibit identical responses in the body and the potency related to the ability to cure vitamin D-deficiency rickets is the same (Fieser and Fieser, 1959; Jones et al., 1998; Jurutka et al., 2001). Experimental animal studies have indicated that vitamin D₂ is less toxic than vitamin D₃, but this has not been demonstrated in humans.

The report's introduction goes on to conclude:

The term vitamin D is generally used in this report to refer to both the D₂ and D₃ forms as well as their metabolites.

These statements are simply wrong. It goes beyond inaccurate to intentionally wrong, with the intent to delude. Vitamins D₂ and D₃ do not metabolize in the same way. This is well documented.

It's almost unimaginable that this report could be taken seriously as anything other than proof that the IOM is firmly in the pockets of Big Pharma and related multinational corporations.

A Brief History of Vitamin D

Vitamin D was first isolated in 1922 by F.G. Hopkins, who was trying to isolate the factor in cod liver oil that prevents rickets.⁽²⁾ During the 20's, Vitamin D₂ was synthesized by ultraviolet exposure to plants. The method was patented and licensed to pharmaceutical companies, which have, as a result, had a significant interest in this issue since then. Most commercial food supplementation has been, and still is, done with Vitamin D₂.

Many studies were done during the next couple of decades to compare types 2 and 3 of Vitamin D, with varying results. In 1940, researcher E.A. Park examined them and found that most were poorly done. Nonetheless, based on nothing but his presumption, he stated that any difference between the two must be minimal. The World Health Organization (WHO) picked up on that and declared that there was no difference. That view became embedded into thinking on the issue, especially among industrial food and supplement manufacturers.

Early on, evidence showed that D₃ is, by weight, about 2 to 3 times more effective than D₂. The amount added to milk does prevent rickets. Until fairly recently, that was the only condition that researchers investigated with any regularity.

It was shown at an early stage that D₃ raises blood serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) much more than Vitamin D₂. Researchers quickly realized that 25(OH)D is the best indicator of D vitamin metabolization. Unfortunately, because standard D₂ fortification in milk prevented rickets in children—and no doubt also becauseindustry's had no interest in making a change that wasn't forced or produced increased profits—Vitamin D₂ has been the usual version used as a supplement in food.

Metabolism of the Two Types of Vitamin D

Fortunately, since then good research clearly demonstrating the superiority of Vitamin D₃ has been done. Originally, both forms were believed to share the same metabolic pathway. The IOM statement, "The D₂ and D₃ forms differ only in their side chain structure," is true. However, the effect of that side chain structure difference is anything but insignificant, and the IOM statement that the "differences do not affect metabolism" is completely wrong.

The two versions go through a process called hydroxylation—in which a hydroxyl group (-OH) is introduced to the vitamin molecule in the kidneys—which oxidizes the side chains that IOM considers so insignificant. However, each version undergoes this process in a different location of the kidney, which results in a different cascade of events. The first two steps are the same, but after that...

That side chain that IOM claims is insignficant appears to result in a Vitamin D₃ spending a significantly longer time in the blood system. Metabolism of Vitamin D₂'s side chain results in the seed of its own destruction, the molecule 1,24,25(OH)₃D₂. It results in the rapid destruction of the metabolized D₂ molecule!

Just how significant this is can be seen in the graph to the left. It comes from a 2004 study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, "Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans".⁽⁵⁾ It shows that serum levels of both D₂ and D₃ spike about 4 days after ingestion, but that D₃ rises for several days after that, and then decreases slowly, so that the serum level is still significantly increased after 30 days. However, after the spike at day 4, serum levels of D₂. At about day 17, it has dropped to the level it was on the day of ingestion, and continues to fall after that.

Based on this demonstrably false claim, the IOM has produced a report claiming that our need for Vitamin D is far far lower than can produce genuinely good health. They claim that there are no good studies to document any benefits beyond prevention of rickets. Every single one of their claims is based on a lie that's carried throughout the report.

Picking through the IOM report presents even more dishonesty. For example, they cite a 1997 report in the European Journal of Endocrinology that claims Vitamin D may do harm in conjunction with post-menopausal hormone replacement therapy.⁽⁴⁾ That's an interesting study to cite, since it is now well known that hormone replacement therapy is, itself, extremely dangerous, causing far more harm than any good it may have done. Surely the authors of the IOM's report knew that!

Dishonesty

Publicity for the IOM's Vitamin D report has made a big splash. As ever, major media didn't bother to look at the report itself. Instead, they simply accepted the conclusions. An actual review of the report shows how utterly corrupt it is. When its most basic assumption proves to be false—so false that it's impossible to believe the authors were unaware—then it must be assumed that the conclusions are equally false.

The IOM stated that there is no real difference between Vitamins D₂ and D₃. As just shown, that is easily disproved. Indeed, a large body of studies has clearly demonstrated that to be false. Even more significant, exactly why it's false is also known. The metabolic pathways for D₂ and D₃ are known, down to the finest detail. They are not the same. They do not result in the same molecules. They do not last in the body the same length of time, and the effect of one, D₃ is known to be 2-3 times greater than the other, D₂.

This claim of no important difference between D₂ and D₃ is absolutely false.

Reasons

There must be a large and powerful contingent with a reason to promote one over the other—and there is. In fact, there's a two-fold reason. One is the entrenchment of D₂ in many products, most notably fortified foods. The other, and most likely more significant, reason is that there's a powerful move in the world today, Codex Alimentarius, which fronts for Big Pharma and Agribusiness to create rules for how and what foods and supplements can be processed, and who may provide the food.

The goal has nothing to do with health and everything to do with making the world safe for multinational corporations to sell their products anywhere and everywhere without competition from the annoying natural and alternative health world. To this end, they have mobilized governments and their agencies to create the environment to force Codex Alimentarius rules on the people of the world. The IOM is a tool in this process.

The noose is being drawn tighter and tighter. Access to products that are genuinely health-inducing is being lost, along with information about them. The FDA itself has made clear that it has no interest in the public's health, even expressing the belief that there is no right to freedom of food or health!

Obviously, the IOM stands with the FDA—and that means they stand against the best interests of humanity.

*****************************************************************************

What do you think? Click here to comment!

*****************************************************************************

Search Gaia Health: