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

Created November 2017
* IoM again fails to look at interactions - Nov 2010 * First report of math mistake was in the month after report was released * The IoM 2010 report also failed to notice the interactions between Calcium and Vitamin D * And thus recommended far too miuch Calcium * Vitamin D math mistake had been made, adults need at least 8000 IU – July 2017 * Vitamin D math mistakes made by the IoM in 2010 – K Baggerly 2016-2017 with video of his presentation * 4 math mistakes * 3,000 IU is needed to get 97.5% of the population to 30 ng 1. See field studies, not computations, in VitaminDWiki * Need 460 IU of vitamin D to get half of young Japanese women to even 20 ng level – Nov 2017 * 2400 IU of Vitamin D is need to get most above 30 nanograms – Sept 2017 * Vitamin D supplementation guidelines (adults – 50,000 IU per week) – Feb 2017 * Chinese women in tropics needed 50,000 IU of Vitamin D monthly to keep above 30 ng – RCT May 2017 * 50,000 IU of vitamin D every two weeks – Jordan conclusion - RCT July 2017 * Much more than 2,000 IU of vitamin D is needed daily (Middle East studies agree) – meta-analysis Nov 2016 * Children getting 60,000 IU monthly got to vitamin D level of 33 ng – Sept 2015 * 2000 IU vitamin D not enough to get most Chinese to 20 ng level – RCT Feb 2015 * Third study found that Infants needed 1600 IU of vitamin D – JAMA RCT May 2013 --- * Institute of Medicine (IoM) became NAM July 2015 * Weak support of IoM position of Vitamin D – 2018

Email from Keith Baggerly 11/21/17

Keith Baggerly kabagg@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.

  1. The Phase I report is here

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

  1. 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???"

  1. 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 itUpton Sinclair

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

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

{include}

Short URL = is.gd/VitDMM

Tags: Consensus How much