While there is no shortage of phony baloney “natural” remedies out there, there is also a tendency for mainstream allopathic medicine to dismiss—out of hand—any claims made for non-prescription remedies. And, since the drug companies own most of the medical journals, such put-downs appear in the “scholarly” literature from time to time.
In keeping with a long-held tradition of stacking the deck on studies involving non-pharmaceutical agents, this latest effort published in JAMA does not disappoint. One or both of the following scams are ALWAYS in play…
- Using a cohort that is too sick to benefit from the therapy
- Using an inappropriate dose or dosage schedule
In this case, the dosage and the schedule were both issues. I mean doesn’t everyone take their Vitamin D once per month? Yes, you read that correctly.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive an initial dose of 200 000 IU oral vitamin D3, then 200 000 IU one month later, then 100,000 IU monthly (n = 161), or placebo administered in an identical dosing regimen (n = 161), for a total of 18 months.
The researchers chose a monthly dosage pattern to assure compliance, and that’s interesting, isn’t it? So much crummy “science” is based on self-assessment, and these guys are at least admitting that such methods could introduce error.
The authors pose the question “Would the results of our study have been different if we had given participants vitamin D, 3300 IU/d, as opposed to 100,000 IU monthly?” Only they don’t answer it. Besides, even if the dosage pattern didn’t matter, 3300 IU per day is not exactly a high dose.
Most people take at least 5000 IU/day, and lots more if they feel sick.
You can bet, though, that the dosage details will not be mentioned in most press accounts of this study. Keep taking your Vitamin D!
Yes, it’s always about the dollars, even if an actual pharmaceutical drug IS involved.