I was not aware of this study and it is one of the most interesting I have read in a long time!

Note that vitamin D consumption not only increased myocardial infarction risk but also increased cholesterol levels. Also, subjects consuming more D did have a higher risk of developing kidney stones – a finding that has played out in more recent studies on vitamin D. For example, one of the most recent and largest meta-analyses on vitamin D supplementation and bone mass found a 17% increase in kidney stones risk among subjects given higher levels of D (the study is mentioned in the article you just read).

It’s extremely interesting to see what researchers were thinking about D back in the 70′s before all organizations like the vitamin D council worked to give D the very mistaken reputation of a “wonder substance.” Instead, Linden and team were actually concerned that people were consuming over 30 ug/ml of vitamin D a day – which is along the same lines of the level those of us working with MP-related research have also found to be a concern. They clearly thought, like we do, that sufficient vitamin D could be obtained from a non-supplemented food supply.

So at the end of the paper Linden and team come to a conclusion very similar to what we are advising today. A quote from their conclusion:

“Various national committees (British Medical Association,
1950; Canadian Bulletin on Nutrition, 1953; American Academy
of Pediatrics, 1963, 1965) have recommended the discontinuation
of fortifying food with vitamin D. In the present study fortified
food provided only a minor part of the individual vitamin D
consumption. An attempt should be made to restrict the intake
from all sources save from the production of the skin. Efforts
should particularly be made to dispel the concept of vitamin D
preparations as tonics, and consideration should be given to the
ease with which vitamin D preparations can be acquired through
commercial sale.”

I did not even know there was a movement to take vitamin D OUT of the food chain in the 60′s. How different things might be today if they had succeeded!

By the way, here’s access to the full text of the article for those interested:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=4425790

Thanks again Alex, a really interesting read.

Best.

Amy

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/5932/647?ijkey=8db272a5c254ca541a9f54361696bba78f16175b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

“Student’s t test for trend showed increasing probability of myocardial infarction with increasing intake of vitamin D, and more infarction patients than controls had a history of kidney stone”

Alex

Very interesting! It’s true (as in the study in the study comparing soldiers that you mention) that disease causing bacteria have spread to different extents in various parts of the world. Chronic forms included.

Most of these differences are now regarded to be due to some aspect of diet or culture, but I believe infectious agents will certainly enter the picture as the major contenders in the coming years.

Best,

Amy

There’s some neat work done by some of the “alternative thyroid” folks referencing autopsies done in the Korean War where fit US and European soldiers were already showing cardiovascular disease and the Asians were not. People were guessing genetics, but no one realized that the infectious disease rate in the East was about 100 years behind the West at that point.

With improved sanitation, antibiotics, and health care, bacteria actually have time to do their work in a CWD form. So now we get increased heart disease, HBP, diabetes, and autoimmune problems rather than dying of TB or pneumonia. It’s the same patient, you just buy them more years of life and treat them 20 years later for a different problem.