Destroying the truth by Disinformation
Example of how wordsmiths are paid to destroy the truth of Vitamin D.
The following article is written by Dr. William Grant who is an expert on the true health value of vitamin D which is actually a hormone that regulates the gene expression of over 3000 genes which are essential for good health. A deficiency in Vitamin D blood value of 20 ng’s or less put’s you at 17 times the risk of dying from the Covid according to the research from grassrootshealth.net. More and more evidence indicates that a blood value of 50 ng’s or more is optimal for good health. Their are gene expressions that allow women to nurse their newborn, a gene that helps protect against the spread of cancer cells, and reduces the risk of breast cancer dramatically to name a few. The risk of dying of Covid is almost non-existent if everyone’s blood value of vitamin D would be over 50ng’s. Of course, then you would not need a mRNA injection. CDC should have encouraged everyone to be tested for low Vitamin D blood value, but that would run counter to the medical path we are on with nano drug injections. Here is Dr. Grant’s analysis of how anti-Vitamin D entities who profit from disease states use disinformation to confuse the general public. Go to the following website to read the Disinformation Playbook in it’s entirety:
The Disinformation Playbook | Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org)
December 1, 2017
Vitamin D acceptance delayed by opposition using the Disinformation Playbook
William B. Grant, Ph.D.
Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center
P.O. Box 641603
San Francisco, CA 94164-1603, USA
The Disinformation Playbook has been used for decades by corporations to delay government action on matters of great public interest that would adversely affect their income and profit. Some of the well-known examples involve the sugar industry, tobacco, oil and gas, and the National Football League. The Union of Concerned Scientists outlined the five pillars of the Playbook
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/disinformation-playbook#.WiA5wlWnFpg
1. The Fake
Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research
2. The Blitz
Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry
3. The Diversion
Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists
4. The Screen
Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies
5. The Fix
Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy
Here are examples of how this is being done for vitamin D.
1. The Fake
Many vitamin D clinical trials, including the major ones currently underway, that do not base the trial on measurements of 25(OH)D concentration.
Grant WB, Boucher BJ, Bhattoa HJ, Lahore. Why vitamin D clinical trials should be based on 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations. JSBMB. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017 Aug 22. pii: S0960-0760(17)30223-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.08.009. [Epub ahead of print]
Grant WB, Boucher BJ. Randomized controlled trials of vitamin D and cancer incidence: A modeling study. PLos One. 2017 May 1;12(5):e0176448.
Jorde R. RCTS are the only appropriate way to demonstrate the role of vitamin D in health. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017 May 5. pii: S0960-0760(17)30128-0. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.05.004. [Epub ahead of print] Review.
Scragg R. Limitations of vitamin D supplementation trials: Why observational studies will continue to help determine the role of vitamin D in health. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017 Jun 13. pii: S0960-0760(17)30157-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.06.006. [Epub ahead of print] Review.
Doing Cochrane systematic reviews and omitting clinical trials that gave 400 IU/d to control groups:
Roth DE, et al. Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: state of the evidence from a systematic review of randomized trials. BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5237 (Published 29 November 2017)
Dangers of high 25OHD concentrations
Grant WB, Karras SN, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Annweiler C, Boucher BJ, Juzeniene A, Garland CF, Holick MF. Do studies reporting ‘U’-shaped serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D–health outcome relationships reflect adverse effects? Dermato-Endocrinology, 2016;8(1): e1187349.
Rooney MR, Harnack L, Michos ED, Ogilvie RP, Sempos CT, Lutsey PL. Trends in Use of High-Dose Vitamin D Supplements Exceeding 1000 or 4000 International Units Daily, 1999-2014. JAMA. 2017 Jun 20;317(23):2448-2450.
2. The Blitz
Michael Holick was criticized by Barbara Gilchrest, MD and ousted from the Dermatology Department for encouraging UVB exposure.
There are also critical responses to some of the papers on vitamin D, e.g.
Bouillon R, Van Schoor NM, Gielen E, Boonen S, Mathieu C, Vanderschueren D, Lips P. Optimal vitamin d status: a critical analysis on the basis of evidence-based medicine. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Aug;98(8):E1283-304.
Rosen CJ, Abrams SA, Aloia JF, Brannon PM, Clinton SK, Durazo-Arvizu RA, Gallagher JC, Gallo RL, Jones G, Kovacs CS, Manson JE, Mayne ST, Ross AC, Shapses SA, Taylor CL. IOM committee members respond to Endocrine Society vitamin D guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Apr;97(4):1146-52.
Also, I think that vitamin D researchers in Australia who try to advocate for vitamin D are told they will lose funding if they do so.
3. The Diversion
Saying that observational studies are invalid since they are not supported by clinical trials
Autier P, Boniol M, Pizot C, Mullie, P. Vitamin D status and ill health: a systematic review. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. Jan. 2014;2(1):76-89.
Autier P, Mullie P, Macacu A, Dragomir M, Boniol M, Coppens K, Pizot C, Boniol M. Effect of vitamin D supplementation on non-skeletal disorders: a systematic review of meta-analyses and randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Dec;5(12):986-1004
Note: Autier's organization is funded by Big Pharama, but Lancet does not make them state that.
Or that they prove little to nothing
Bolland MJ, Grey A, Gamble GD, Reid IR. The effect of vitamin D supplementation on skeletal, vascular, or cancer outcomes: a trial sequential meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2014 Apr;2(4):307-20.
However, "Published RCTs have mostly been performed in populations without low 25OHD levels. The fact that most MAs on results from RCTs did not show a beneficial effect does not disprove the hypothesis suggested by observational findings on adverse health outcomes of low 25OHD levels."
Rejnmark L, Bislev LS, Cashman KD, Eiríksdottir G, Gaksch M, Grübler M, Grimnes G, Gudnason V, Lips P, Pilz S, van Schoor NM, Kiely M, Jorde R. Non-skeletal health effects of vitamin D supplementation: A systematic review on findings from meta-analyses summarizing trial data. PLoS One. 2017 Jul 7;12(7):e0180512.
Saying that observational studies do not establish causality.
Wimalawansa SJ. Vitamin D and cardiovascular diseases: Causality. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016 Dec 24. pii: S0960-0760(16)30363-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.12.016. [Epub ahead of print] Review.
Well, the major confounding factor in general is UVB exposure, perhaps a bit from dietary animal products, but there are few diseases for which UVB exposure has been shown to have beneficial effects except for multiple sclerosis, perhaps 1-2 others.
Urging people to avoid the sun and wear sunscreen
Buchanan L. Slip, slop, slap, seek, slide - is the message really getting across? Dermatol Online J. 2013 Aug 15;19(8):19258.
Lucas RM, McMichael AJ, Armstrong BK, Smith WT. Estimating the global disease burden due to ultraviolet radiation exposure. Int J Epidemiol. 2008 Jun;37(3):654-67.
Marks R. Skin cancer control in the 1990's, from slip! Slop! Slap! To sun smart. Australas J Dermatol. 1990;31(1):1-4.
Sinclair C. Vitamin D--an emerging issue in skin cancer control. Implications for public health practice based on the Australian experience. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2007;174:197-204
4. The Screen
Big Pharma contributes to all major disease organizations and they all oppose vitamin D.
American Academy of Dermatology
American Cancer Society
Breast cancer organizations
March of Dimes
National Medical Association (WBG - personal experience)
From Embrace the Sun, Sorenson and Grant:
"John Cannell points out that in 1989, about the time autism began its most rapid increase in incidence, the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs first warned of the perceived dangers of sun exposure and advised to keep infants out of the sun as much as possible.[i]In 1999, when autism risk began to really skyrocket, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised to keep infants out of direct sun and to make sure that activities minimized sun exposure[ii]It is quite possible that the results of all of this “protection” has been an increase in autism. The increase in the incidence of autism has closely paralleled the increase in sun-avoidance efforts. Tourette’s syndrome (another nervous-system disorder) has also increased, parallel to the growth in autism.[iii]"
Big Pharma also gives millions for research to medical schools
We all know the major academic opponents of vitamin D, so I won't name them here.
Big Pharma also places many ads in medical journals and other media, thereby buying acceptance of the pharmaceutical drug model. Some journals with an anti-vitamin D bias:
JAMA
Lancet
New England Journal of Medicine
Manson JE, Brannon PM, Rosen CJ, Taylor CL. Vitamin D Deficiency - Is There Really a Pandemic? N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1817-1820.
5. The Fix
Big Pharma controls the CDC, FDA, and NIH
Worth reading
Peter C. Gotezsche, Deadly Medicine and Organized Crime; How big pharma has corrupted healthcare. Radcliff Publishing, London and NY. 2013
The IoM report on vitamin D
Ross AC, Manson JE, Abrams SA, Aloia JF, Brannon PM, Clinton SK, Durazo-Arvizu RA, Gallagher JC, Gallo RL, Jones G, Kovacs CS, Mayne ST, Rosen CJ, Shapses SA. The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine: what clinicians need to know. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Jan;96(1):53-8.
[i] JAMA 1989;262:380-84.(no authors listed)
[ii] Cannell, J. Vitamin D newsletter, May 2007.
[iii] Atladóttir HO, Parner ET, Schendel D, Dalsgaard S, Thomsen PH, Thorsen P. Time trends in reported diagnoses of childhood neuropsychiatric disorders: a Danish cohort study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161:193-8.