God i like to get a little burnt but being a fair hair leaping gnome who had melanoma excised I'm a bit slow to repeat my excesses of youth sometimes. So what it a best path?
Question where do we get vitamin D aside from light?
Current art suggests.
....................................
: Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Jul;19(7):468-83. Links
Vitamin D for cancer prevention: global perspective. Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland FC. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. PURPOSE: Higher serum levels of the main circulating form of vitamin D,
25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), are associated with substantially lower incidence rates of colon, breast, ovarian, renal, pancreatic, aggressive prostate and other cancers. METHODS: Epidemiological findings combined with newly discovered mechanisms suggest a new model of cancer etiology that accounts for these actions of 25(OH)D and calcium. Its seven phases are disjunction, initiation, natural selection, overgrowth, metastasis, involution, and transition (abbreviated DINOMIT). Vitamin D metabolites prevent disjunction of cells and are beneficial in other phases. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100-150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half. There are no unreasonable risks from intake of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D(3), or from a population serum 25(OH)D level of 40 to 60 ng/mL. The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium. PMID: 19523595 [PubMed - in process]
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:07:56 -0400, Bill who putters spuked forth:
Fair hair leaping gnome???? Gawd, you never cease to make make me smile, old friend. The mental image is fantastic!
I'm a gonna post a link and the whole article to save you time and start the good folk a hollering about bandwidth and all that stuff.....
BTW and as an aside...I think we done been sold out on campaign promises and all that happy horseshit.....Know Whut I Mean, Verne???
We also supplement with Vit D and I get lots of sunshine also....without any SPF stuff........
Charlie, who will die of summat sumtime fer sure and doesn't look forward to the prospect......
Worried Sick: How Vulnerable Are You Really to Heart Attack, Stroke or Breast Cancer? By Maggie Mahar, Health Beat Posted on November 27, 2008, Printed on June 18, 2009
formatting link
that you are a 40-year-old man. What do you think the chances are that you will die of a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years? (Please forgive the morbidity of the question; there is a purpose to this pop quiz.) The answer: just 4 out of 10,000 according to Drs. Steve Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, authors of Know Your Chances. The chances that you will die in an accident before reaching your 50th birthday are 50 percent higher: 6 out of 10,000.
Nevertheless, many men remain convinced that they are at great risk of dying from vascular disease, particularly as they get older. In truth, even at age 60, the odds that a heart attack or stroke will end your life over the next decade are only 37 out of 10,000. Over that span, you are three times more likely to die of another cause -- with the chance of an fatal accident (5 out of 10,000) just as high as the chance of a stroke. Moreover, for reasons we do not fully understand, the incidence of heart attacks is declining.
"Fifty hears ago, heart attacks were a scourge. Everyone knew a working-age man who'd dropped dead from one," writes Dr. Nortin Hadler in his new book, Worried Sick. Today "the decline in mortality from coronary artery disease is well documented."
There is one exception: If you are a 60-year-old smoker, the chance of a fatal heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years climbs to 67 out of 10,000, and your chance of dying of lung disease rises to 59 out of
10,000.
The moral? The average man should probably worry less about his cholesterol levels and more about driving safely and avoiding tobacco.
For many women, breast cancer is the great fear. Again, let's look at the numbers. If you are a 35-year-old woman, what do you think the chances are that you will die of breast cancer before you turn 45? Just 1 out of 10,000 according to Woloshin and Schwartz. The chances that you will die in an accident over the next decade are twice as high: 2 out of 10,000.
Granted, as you grow older, your chances of dying from breast cancer rise, but so do your chances of dying from other causes. When you are
60, the odds that breast cancer will kill you over the next 10 years are 7 out of 10,000. Slim odds. The chances you will die of a heart attack are twice as high: 14 out of 10,000. Maybe you shouldn't worry quite so much about breast cancer.
I was surprised by these numbers, because I thought breast cancer was a leading cause of death among women. This is because I have heard that 1 in 9 women will "get" breast cancer if they live to 85. But as Woloshin and Schwartz point out, this is one of those health messages that is "intended to be scary, warning us that we are surrounded by danger and hinting that everything we do or neglect to do brings us one step closer to cancer, heart disease and death."
As a result, Americans are Worried Sick writes Hadler. A professor of medicine and microbiology/immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Hadler points out that "far less than 1 in 9 women will die of breast cancer, or even know that they 'have' it when they die."
Unless they had a mammogram. Then they would probably find out and be treated -- whether or not they need treatment. It turns out that two-thirds of women over 55 who have breast cancer will die of something else. Here are the numbers: In order to prevent one cancer death among women over 55, 250 women have to be screened annually, beginning at age 55. But mammograms will also detect two other women with breast cancer who would not have died of the cancer. "In other words" Hadler says, "the screening will lead to the treatment of three women, for two of whom the treatment is unnecessary."
"This is the best-case scenario for screening postmenopausal women," Hadler explains. One out of 250 will be saved, and two out of 250 will be exposed to the risk and worry of treatment without deriving any benefit. Hadler sums up the findings: "Early detection [via a mammogram] makes less sense the older the woman, or the more morbidities [potentially fatal diseases] that she suffers. In such a circumstance, breast cancer is but one of the processes vying for the proximate cause of death and not the most likely to win."
Moreover, there is no "best-case scenario" for screening younger woman, unless they have a family history of early death from breast cancer. This, Hadler notes, is why "the American College of Physicians believes that the risks of unnecessary biopsies far outweighs the likelihood of saving a life, and therefore does not recommend mammography before age 50 and suggests that women do not need to be screened after age 74. Similarly, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammography screening only every one to two years for women age 50-69.
Precancers
Too often, Hadler warns, mammograms discover ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); "in situ" suggests that there is no discernible evidence that the cancer is spreading. By the 1970s, physicians were finding more and more cases of DCIS.
"It's about this time that the notion of a ?precancer' really took hold," Hadler observes. "Powerful surgeons writing in powerful journals were advocating mastectomy to expunge the risk, whatever its magnitude." DCIS can become invasive, he acknowledges, "but low-grade, tiny DCIS lesions take their time to become invasive, even more time to become metastatic."
"It is defensible to excise DCIS if it is discovered in a younger patient," he says. "That's not the issue. The issues are what are the yield and iatrogenicity [danger of inadvertently harming the patient] when trying [so] hard to discover DCIS in the first place?"
Today, "we are witnessing an epidemic of DCIS," says Hadler. "In 1980, DCIS accounted for only 2 percent of breast cancers. Between 1973 and
1992, the age-adjusted incidence rate of DCIS increased nearly sixfold. Meanwhile, the age-adjusted rise in the incidence of invasive ductal cancer was only 34 percent. Women are not getting more cancers. Rather, U.S. women are getting more breast biopsies thanks to mammography." And once diagnosed, "local excision is always recommended, often with some radiation therapy, chemotherapy or surgical exploration of the nodules." And local excision can be extensive, to assure "clean margins." Often, women then opt for painful, expensive breast reconstruction.
How many of these women would have been better off if they had never known about the lesion? As Hadler points out, older women in particular, are likely to die of something else before this type of cancer becomes invasive.
Nevertheless, Americans have been sold on the idea that early detection is always best. Hadler says: "the public-awareness program for cancer has been far more successful in promoting enthusiasm than reason." Research shows that "Americans are willing to undergo screening without regard to the efficacy of the tests or the likelihood that they will lead to unnecessary treatment."
Hadler and Popper
Who is Nortin Hadler, and why he is saying these terrible things about screening and early detection? Hadler is a scientist and a physician. He started his career as a geneticist, moved on to study immunochemistry, and spent his first decade on faculty as a physical biochemistry professor. Today, he is a professor of medicine and an attending rheumatologist at UNC hospitals. He has closed his laboratory, but he retains "a keen appreciation for the scientific method at its most rigorous."
At the same time, Hadler knows how fallible medical science is. A student of Karl Popper, the philosopher of science who taught that "truth is only the hypothesis that is yet to be disproved," Hadler knows that today's received wisdom may be replaced tomorrow.
Not long ago, he points out "tonsils were removed because they were swollen and uteruses because they were lumpy." We were wrong. Throughout the 1990s, oncologists thought that bone-marrow transplants would help breast cancer patients -- and thousands of women suffered needlessly. More recently, we are realizing that when you consider the risks as well as the benefits, we may have been overly optimistic about mammograms as the answer to breast cancer. A few women are saved; many others are hurt. Or as an Australian study declared not long ago: "Benefits and harms of screening mammography are relatively finely balanced."
Until quite recently, the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society recommended PSA testing for early-stage prostate cancer for average-risk men over 50. Now, they don't.
In medicine, scientific progress is not simply a matter of accumulating of knowledge. Often, advances mean unlearning what we thought we knew -- and replacing that knowledge with a new, temporary truth. Sometimes the new truth is misleading; sometimes it will apply only to some patients. Always, we have to be ready to see it replaced. Hadler explains that he wrote Worried Sick, not for people who are seriously ill, but for the "worried well." Hadler wants to help us cope with knowing that we are mortal without letting the fear of death shadow our lives as we fret over each and every symptom -- be it "heartburn, a peculiar sensation or a realization of our physical limits."
His goal is "bolster the personal resources that facilitate coping" with the ills that flesh is heir to. "And our coping is in dreadful need of bolstering," he adds. "The wealth of information disseminated by all sorts of health care vendors, including those in the medical profession, may be intended as helpful but often is not. Much of this information does violence to our sense of invincibility without doing equivalent good for our health or longevity...
"Your sense of well-being requires conviction to withstand the badgering assaults of health-promotion programs," Hadler adds. "Yes, we will all die. The issue for me is not so much how or why we die, but when and how we lived." But in our health care system, and in the mind of the laymen, "the proximate cause of death is foremost, so that great energy and great wealth is expended trying to spare you death from a particular cause without considering whether you will die at the same time from some other cause. "
Ultimately, Hadler wants to help us cope with not being perfectly well
-- and knowing that we are mortal without being "worried to death" about dying. "No one should be as concerned about the proximate cause of their demise as they are about the likelihood their course in life will be satisfying. It matters little what carries one off, as long as it was her or his time and the journey was gratifying."
Maggie Mahar is a fellow at the Century Foundation and the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006).
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:07:56 -0400, Bill who putters spuked forth:
(Funny stuff happening....first time I posted this, it showed up as msg no longer available....hmmmmm)
Fair hair leaping gnome???? Gawd, you never cease to make make me smile, old friend. The mental image is fantastic!
I'm a gonna post a link and the whole article to save you time and start the good folk a hollering about bandwidth and all that stuff.....
BTW and as an aside...I think we done been sold out on campaign promises and all that happy horseshit.....Know Whut I Mean, Verne???
We also supplement with Vit D and I get lots of sunshine also....without any SPF stuff........
Charlie, who will die of summat sumtime fer sure and doesn't look forward to the prospect......
Worried Sick: How Vulnerable Are You Really to Heart Attack, Stroke or Breast Cancer? By Maggie Mahar, Health Beat Posted on November 27, 2008, Printed on June 18, 2009
formatting link
that you are a 40-year-old man. What do you think the chances are that you will die of a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years? (Please forgive the morbidity of the question; there is a purpose to this pop quiz.) The answer: just 4 out of 10,000 according to Drs. Steve Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, authors of Know Your Chances. The chances that you will die in an accident before reaching your 50th birthday are 50 percent higher: 6 out of 10,000.
Nevertheless, many men remain convinced that they are at great risk of dying from vascular disease, particularly as they get older. In truth, even at age 60, the odds that a heart attack or stroke will end your life over the next decade are only 37 out of 10,000. Over that span, you are three times more likely to die of another cause -- with the chance of an fatal accident (5 out of 10,000) just as high as the chance of a stroke. Moreover, for reasons we do not fully understand, the incidence of heart attacks is declining.
"Fifty hears ago, heart attacks were a scourge. Everyone knew a working-age man who'd dropped dead from one," writes Dr. Nortin Hadler in his new book, Worried Sick. Today "the decline in mortality from coronary artery disease is well documented."
There is one exception: If you are a 60-year-old smoker, the chance of a fatal heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years climbs to 67 out of 10,000, and your chance of dying of lung disease rises to 59 out of
10,000.
The moral? The average man should probably worry less about his cholesterol levels and more about driving safely and avoiding tobacco.
For many women, breast cancer is the great fear. Again, let's look at the numbers. If you are a 35-year-old woman, what do you think the chances are that you will die of breast cancer before you turn 45? Just 1 out of 10,000 according to Woloshin and Schwartz. The chances that you will die in an accident over the next decade are twice as high: 2 out of 10,000.
Granted, as you grow older, your chances of dying from breast cancer rise, but so do your chances of dying from other causes. When you are
60, the odds that breast cancer will kill you over the next 10 years are 7 out of 10,000. Slim odds. The chances you will die of a heart attack are twice as high: 14 out of 10,000. Maybe you shouldn't worry quite so much about breast cancer.
I was surprised by these numbers, because I thought breast cancer was a leading cause of death among women. This is because I have heard that 1 in 9 women will "get" breast cancer if they live to 85. But as Woloshin and Schwartz point out, this is one of those health messages that is "intended to be scary, warning us that we are surrounded by danger and hinting that everything we do or neglect to do brings us one step closer to cancer, heart disease and death."
As a result, Americans are Worried Sick writes Hadler. A professor of medicine and microbiology/immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Hadler points out that "far less than 1 in 9 women will die of breast cancer, or even know that they 'have' it when they die."
Unless they had a mammogram. Then they would probably find out and be treated -- whether or not they need treatment. It turns out that two-thirds of women over 55 who have breast cancer will die of something else. Here are the numbers: In order to prevent one cancer death among women over 55, 250 women have to be screened annually, beginning at age 55. But mammograms will also detect two other women with breast cancer who would not have died of the cancer. "In other words" Hadler says, "the screening will lead to the treatment of three women, for two of whom the treatment is unnecessary."
"This is the best-case scenario for screening postmenopausal women," Hadler explains. One out of 250 will be saved, and two out of 250 will be exposed to the risk and worry of treatment without deriving any benefit. Hadler sums up the findings: "Early detection [via a mammogram] makes less sense the older the woman, or the more morbidities [potentially fatal diseases] that she suffers. In such a circumstance, breast cancer is but one of the processes vying for the proximate cause of death and not the most likely to win."
Moreover, there is no "best-case scenario" for screening younger woman, unless they have a family history of early death from breast cancer. This, Hadler notes, is why "the American College of Physicians believes that the risks of unnecessary biopsies far outweighs the likelihood of saving a life, and therefore does not recommend mammography before age 50 and suggests that women do not need to be screened after age 74. Similarly, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammography screening only every one to two years for women age 50-69.
Precancers
Too often, Hadler warns, mammograms discover ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); "in situ" suggests that there is no discernible evidence that the cancer is spreading. By the 1970s, physicians were finding more and more cases of DCIS.
"It's about this time that the notion of a ?precancer' really took hold," Hadler observes. "Powerful surgeons writing in powerful journals were advocating mastectomy to expunge the risk, whatever its magnitude." DCIS can become invasive, he acknowledges, "but low-grade, tiny DCIS lesions take their time to become invasive, even more time to become metastatic."
"It is defensible to excise DCIS if it is discovered in a younger patient," he says. "That's not the issue. The issues are what are the yield and iatrogenicity [danger of inadvertently harming the patient] when trying [so] hard to discover DCIS in the first place?"
Today, "we are witnessing an epidemic of DCIS," says Hadler. "In 1980, DCIS accounted for only 2 percent of breast cancers. Between 1973 and
1992, the age-adjusted incidence rate of DCIS increased nearly sixfold. Meanwhile, the age-adjusted rise in the incidence of invasive ductal cancer was only 34 percent. Women are not getting more cancers. Rather, U.S. women are getting more breast biopsies thanks to mammography." And once diagnosed, "local excision is always recommended, often with some radiation therapy, chemotherapy or surgical exploration of the nodules." And local excision can be extensive, to assure "clean margins." Often, women then opt for painful, expensive breast reconstruction.
How many of these women would have been better off if they had never known about the lesion? As Hadler points out, older women in particular, are likely to die of something else before this type of cancer becomes invasive.
Nevertheless, Americans have been sold on the idea that early detection is always best. Hadler says: "the public-awareness program for cancer has been far more successful in promoting enthusiasm than reason." Research shows that "Americans are willing to undergo screening without regard to the efficacy of the tests or the likelihood that they will lead to unnecessary treatment."
Hadler and Popper
Who is Nortin Hadler, and why he is saying these terrible things about screening and early detection? Hadler is a scientist and a physician. He started his career as a geneticist, moved on to study immunochemistry, and spent his first decade on faculty as a physical biochemistry professor. Today, he is a professor of medicine and an attending rheumatologist at UNC hospitals. He has closed his laboratory, but he retains "a keen appreciation for the scientific method at its most rigorous."
At the same time, Hadler knows how fallible medical science is. A student of Karl Popper, the philosopher of science who taught that "truth is only the hypothesis that is yet to be disproved," Hadler knows that today's received wisdom may be replaced tomorrow.
Not long ago, he points out "tonsils were removed because they were swollen and uteruses because they were lumpy." We were wrong. Throughout the 1990s, oncologists thought that bone-marrow transplants would help breast cancer patients -- and thousands of women suffered needlessly. More recently, we are realizing that when you consider the risks as well as the benefits, we may have been overly optimistic about mammograms as the answer to breast cancer. A few women are saved; many others are hurt. Or as an Australian study declared not long ago: "Benefits and harms of screening mammography are relatively finely balanced."
Until quite recently, the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society recommended PSA testing for early-stage prostate cancer for average-risk men over 50. Now, they don't.
In medicine, scientific progress is not simply a matter of accumulating of knowledge. Often, advances mean unlearning what we thought we knew -- and replacing that knowledge with a new, temporary truth. Sometimes the new truth is misleading; sometimes it will apply only to some patients. Always, we have to be ready to see it replaced. Hadler explains that he wrote Worried Sick, not for people who are seriously ill, but for the "worried well." Hadler wants to help us cope with knowing that we are mortal without letting the fear of death shadow our lives as we fret over each and every symptom -- be it "heartburn, a peculiar sensation or a realization of our physical limits."
His goal is "bolster the personal resources that facilitate coping" with the ills that flesh is heir to. "And our coping is in dreadful need of bolstering," he adds. "The wealth of information disseminated by all sorts of health care vendors, including those in the medical profession, may be intended as helpful but often is not. Much of this information does violence to our sense of invincibility without doing equivalent good for our health or longevity...
"Your sense of well-being requires conviction to withstand the badgering assaults of health-promotion programs," Hadler adds. "Yes, we will all die. The issue for me is not so much how or why we die, but when and how we lived." But in our health care system, and in the mind of the laymen, "the proximate cause of death is foremost, so that great energy and great wealth is expended trying to spare you death from a particular cause without considering whether you will die at the same time from some other cause. "
Ultimately, Hadler wants to help us cope with not being perfectly well
-- and knowing that we are mortal without being "worried to death" about dying. "No one should be as concerned about the proximate cause of their demise as they are about the likelihood their course in life will be satisfying. It matters little what carries one off, as long as it was her or his time and the journey was gratifying."
"Worried Sick: How Vulnerable Are You Really?" I figure I'm 100% vulnerable, really. When I stop being vulnerable I'll stop worrying about it. Meantime, it's not too much saturated fat, stay away from white flour (especially bleached), take the salt off the table, buy organic when I can, eat 5 servings of fruits and vegetables every day, and (sigh) seriously cut back on alcoholic beverages. But then I'm 66 and I just want to push this wreck down the road a little bit further.
The article sort of sounds like my HMO. "Raise your arms. Turn your head. How does this feel? Do these exercises. No need for expensive scans at your age."
Lovey-poo's aunt, 90, hell on wheels, diagnosed with cancer in a 1/3 of her left lung, is told (by the same HMO that I belong to) that at her age, the operation could kill her. "Oxen shisten" she replies, and 5 months later is scabed-up, and just as mean and nasty as ever.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for cost/benefit considerations, just not at my cost for their benefit.
formatting link
GOODMAN Getting in the way of a doctor¹s calling By Ellen Goodman | June 19, 2009 THERE WILL BE time to talk about costs and coverage, about public and private plans, about reasoning and rationing in healthcare reform. So the president began this week speaking to the workers in the system: doctors.
At the meeting of the American Medical Association, Barack Obama tackled the model ³that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession - a calling - to a business.¹¹ He reminded doctors: ³You didn¹t enter this profession to become bean counters and paper pushers. You entered this profession to be healers. And that¹s what our healthcare system should let you be.¹¹
------
Of course it won't do any good, but write to your Congressional representatives and tell them we want single-payer health care. For good measure, you might tell them to screw the insurance companies while they're at it. Turn about is fair play.
I had an interesting conversation with somebody about the effect of women who have to be covered heat to foot in a burka or some such and how seriously their health is affected by a lack of sun exposure and decrease in vit D!!!! Somewhere between zone 5 and 6 tucked along the shore of Lake Michigan on the council grounds of the Fox, Mascouten, Potawatomi, and Winnebago
of Medicine Has Announced the Next Vit D Food and Nutrition Board. Guess Who is Left Out?
Vitamin D has been called the ³buzz² vitamin of 2008. It¹s early 2009 and current medical research demonstrating the benefits of optimal vitamin D supplementation is still coming in. Vitamin D has now been found to help diminish age-related mental decline, and vitamin D deficiency is linked to erythropoietic protoporphyria photosensitivity, a metabolic disorder characterized by a deficiency of a particular enzyme in the blood, which causes excessive amounts of the chemical compound protoporphyrin to accumulate in the bone marrow, blood plasma, and red blood cells. The major symptom of this disorder is hypersensitivity of the skin to sunlight and some types of artificial light. After exposure to light, the skin may become itchy and red. Affected individuals may also experience a burning sensation on their skin. The January 2009 Life Extension printed an eloquent article by Bill Faloon citing the research and giving a myriad of reasons to supplement with Vitamin D.
A quiet announcement by the government¹s Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently announced the members of the next Vitamin D Food and Nutrition Board (FNB). This committee will set recommendations for both adequate intake and upper limits for the next decade. According to the founder of the Vitamin D Council, John J. Cannell, MD, ³Unfortunately, the scientists who have led the vitamin D revolution for the last ten years are all excluded.² Dr. Cannell¹s list of excluded vitamin D experts is long: Drs. Vieth, Giovannucci, Garland, Hollis, Heaney, Wagner, Norman, Hankinson, Whitting, and Hanley, among others. Many of the excluded experts have used strong language to criticize the Institute of Medicine.
The Food and Nutrition Board believes that adequate intake of vitamin D is the same for the largest pregnant women as for the smallest premature infant, a notion that is patently absurd. Keep in mind that animal studies have demonstrated vitamin D deficiency cause neuronal injury and autistic-like changes in the brains of their offspring.
According to Dr. Cannell, ³Current research indicates that vitamin D deficiency plays a role in causing 17 varieties of cancer as well as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, depression, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, birth defects, and periodontal disease.² Colleen Hayes, PhD of U of Wisconsin, who has done ground-breaking research on MS and Vitamin D, states that residents at the equator, where vitamin D deficiency is unknown, get the equivalent of 5000 IU of vitamin D daily. (Consult a knowledgeable physician to determine by a blood test whether you need vitamin D supplementation.)
We deserve to hear from our nation¹s experts about vitamin D. Click here to send a letter to your Congressional Representative and Senator to insure that all experts are consulted by the government about an important nutrient, vitamin D, to keep you healthy. And that the government inform the public about the revolution in vitamin D research. Imagine for a moment that vitamin D were a new drug. The government (along with drug companies) would shout from the rooftops about it.
More isn't always better with vitamins. Too much vitamin D can calcify your blood vessels and contributes to the formation of kidney stones. So you have to be careful with supplements. But most people don't need them.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.