Loading...
 
Register Log In Login with facebook

US admits math mistake was made in 2010 in estimating Vitamin D, but will not change recommendations – Nov 2017

Email from Keith Baggerly 11/21/17

Keith Baggerly kabagg at mdanderson.org is the son of Leo and Carol Baggerly of GrassrootsHealth

Just the facts.
About a year ago, concerns were raised about mathematical errors in the
Insitute of Medicine (IOM) report on vitamin D. These errors could have
led to recommended intakes being set too low.

In response, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and
Medicine (NASEM) convened expert panels to review the issue in
two phases. In the first phase, one expert panel was asked to
determine whether or not statistical errors were indeed present.
The second phase would kick in if the first was answered in the
affirmative. In the second phase, another expert panel (with
some overlap with the first panel) would be charged with determining
if and how the IOM report's recommendations should be changed in light
of the errors identified.

The reports from these two phases are now posted on the web page for the original report
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx

The links are near the bottom of the page, in the paragraph

> Note: In response to claims of methodological errors in this report after its release, the National Academies undertook a two-phased review process to identify whether errors had been made and if so what effect those errors had on the findings. Here are the reports of the two review panels: Phase I and Phase II.

The Phase I report is here

https://www.nap.edu/resource/13050/Vit%20D%20panel%20report%20final.pdf

The Phase II report is here

https://www.nap.edu/resource/13050/FINAL%20Vitamin%20D%20Phase%20II%20Panel%20Report_11-17-17.pdf

The report has been issued. Keith (Baggerly) is looking in depth which you are certainly encouraged to do as well. It's a big question now as to what we should do. Carole (Baggerly)

The bottom lines:

  • The first panel agreed there were indeed mathematical errors in the IOM report.
  • The second panel, however, found that the errors identified would not have affected the final recommendations made, so these remain unchanged.


On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Keith Baggerly <kabagg@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx

The links are near the bottom of the page, in the paragraph

> Note: In response to claims of methodological errors in this report after its release, the National Academies undertook a two-phased review process to identify whether errors had been made and if so what effect those errors had on the findings. Here are the reports of the two review panels: Phase I and Phase II.

The Phase I report is here

https://www.nap.edu/resource/13050/Vit%20D%20panel%20report%20final.pdf

The Phase II report is here

https://www.nap.edu/resource/13050/FINAL%20Vitamin%20D%20Phase%20II%20Panel%20Report_11-17-17.pdf


Comment on the above email from Canada
"How was it not viewed a conflict of interest to have a committee member on the second panel, responsible for determining if RDA should be adjusted, who was the Chair of the committee that produced the initial 2010 IOM report under investigation???"


Comments by Founder of VitaminDWiki, Henry Lahore

The Phase 2 report is an excellent example of bafflegab
   baf·fle·gab: "incomprehensible or pretentious language, especially bureaucratic jargon"
Some interesting phrasing from the Phase II study

  • "This panel accepted as given the choice of bone health as the only health outcome"
  • ". . it is impossible to say with complete certainty whether and/or how the committee’s collective judgment might have changed had the errors not been made"
  • " . . the panel thinks it unlikely that this result would have changed the determination of the RDA for vitamin D/"
  • "The SACN and EFSA reports,. . . used a risk assessment framework and both used the literature review and conclusions of the IOM report as a starting point"
  • "In addition, the extent to which the conclusions of the IOM report influenced the recommendations of the SACN and EFSA reports is unknown."

Very circular reasoning:
1) US decided how much was needed in 2010
2) Europeans made decisions how much to recommend, starting from the US recommendations
3) US in 2017 says US must be right, even if the math was wrong, the Europeans agree with our recommendations
Many problems with SACN and EFSA

  1. The SACN has cherry-picked data;
  2. The SACN has not taken into account the problems with vitamin D intake studies;
  3. The SACN has misinterpreted available data on the effects of genetic polymorphisms on vitamin D requirement;
  4. The SACN has not sufficiently accounted for the effects of increased body weight and use of sunscreens;
  5. The SACN has ignored expert evidence;
  6. The SACN has ignored differences between vitamin D2 and D3;
  7. The SACN has ignore emerging evidence for the role of elevated vitamin D status on reducing the risk of certain cancers;
  8. The SACN has not proposed different recommendations for different racial groups/skin colours,
  9. The SACN has not considered that there are likely to be overlapping risks and benefits;

Reminder: Doctors have at least 10 reasons to be reluctant to increase vitamin D: which has the following quote

  • It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary is dependent upon his not understanding it Upton Sinclair

Many studies have found that even bones need more than 600 IU

They continue to ignore the non-bone benefits of vitamin D

Hypertension, Cardiovascular, Back pain, Diabetes, Influenza, Falls, Hip Fractures, Breast Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Raynaud's pain, Menstrual Pain, C-section and pregnancy risks, Low Birth Weight, Chronic Kidney Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, TB, Rickets, Respiratory Tract Infection, Lupus, Sickle Cell, leg ulcers, traumatic brain injury. Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Congestive Heart Failure (Infants), Middle Ear Infection (Infants), Gingivitis, stronger senior muscles, antibiotic use in seniors, short Infants, Gestational Diabetes, heart pump better after the attack, Prostate Cancer, Asthma, Depression, Vitamin D in Breast Milk, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Hives, Cholesterol, Weight loss, COPD, Asthma, Quality of Life, Survive ICU, Restless Leg Syndrome, Hepatitis-C, Chron's disease, Pre-term birth, Lupus, Cluster headaches, Autism. PreDiabetes, Weight loss; Sarcopenia = muscle loss; Growing Pains, Osteoarthritis, ALS, Vertigo, Warts, Metabolic Syndrome, Hay fever, Preeclampsia, Blood cell cancer, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Urinary Tract Infection, Mite Allergy, Perinatal Depression, Vaginosis. Eczema, NAFLD, Knee Osteoarthritis, Tuberculosis, Ischemic Stroke, Sepsis, Trauma Deaths, Hemodialysis, Fatty liver - child, Fatigue, Poor Sleep, Pneumonia (Ventilator-associated), Male infertility

Short URL = is.gd/VitDMM

Created by admin. Last Modification: Thursday November 23, 2017 20:22:08 UTC by admin. (Version 22)
See any problem with this page? Report it to the webmaster.