Re: Liz Szabo’s piece on Professor Michael Holick
Finally, the New York Times published another story on vitamin D! During the last 12 months, scientists from around the world published 4,620 new vitamin D peer-reviewed vitamin D studies, adding to the National Library of Medicine’s (NLM)’s 77,322 current vitamin D holdings. During the same year, the Times ran one story about D, also a hit piece. Are any of those 77,322 studies of interest to the Times? What about vitamin D and the Kakapo, a large nocturnal, forest dwelling and flightless parrot native to New Zealand, and possible extinction? Or, vitamin D as the only compound tested that helps prevent tissue damage in a mustard gas attack? Better yet - the Times, Szabo and your 4 anti-D experts will like this one, vitamin D is one the most commonly used rat poisons in the US.
Most recently, the Times latest contribution to the vitamin D debate, effectively castrated a leader, claiming that money, not humanity, is Michael Holick’s true motive. Szabo did omit the motivations of those she sourced, both on and off the record. For example, HD, the other famous vitamin D professor Szabo’s used as her background source, a famous vitamin D scientist, a long-time member of the National Academy of Science (NAS), etc., what were his motivations in backgrounding Szabo? Has HD blackballed Holick from membership in the NAS for the last 12 years? Was Holick nominated again this year? Is HD going to keep him out again? Or, is Holick finally getting into the NAS, every scientist’s dream? Of course, not after the hit, but perhaps Szabo didn’t know that; I promise you HD did.
Szabo repeatedly, and accurately, referred to the millions Holick has made from vitamin D. Did she know that her background source, HD, doesn’t measure his vitamin D wealth millions, his is in billions? Where did HD get it? Are any of those billions imperiled by Holick? Such as, Drisdol, the D doctors used to prescribe? Szabo detailed all of Holick’s vitamin D activities, making the case Holick only does it for the money. But she overlooked one of his most time-consuming ones, his 500 or so court appearances over the last ten years around the world as a medical expert in certain child abuse cases, ones involving multiple unexplained fractures in infancy? But, Holick always appears pro bono, even paying for his own travel, why’s that Liz, did HD tell you he’s a pedophile?
You say Holick is responsible for the ten million 2016 Medicare vitamin D blood tests, its fifth-most-common test, at a cost of $365 million and the billion spent on vitamin D supplements. By himself, only one of the > 1,000 active vitamin D researchers, did this? Wow? The Endocrine Society’s (ES) report, Szabo says is all Holick’s work, the other seven members “adopted Dr. Holick’s position that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups.” If you investigated those seven just a little, all seven had and still have opinions of their own, ones divergent from Holick’s. As for Holick’s seduction by Quest Diagnostics, in 2008, after we found Quest was reporting widespread bogus vitamin D blood levels, and couldn’t get the Times to help (the NYT did, six months later) it was Holick who guided me in attacking Quest, not HD.
Szabo’s expert sources, Rosen, Krist, Ross and Manson, all contend there’s no vitamin D problem. Others, like some of the scientists who authored the 4,620 new D papers this year, disagree, most think the problem’s rife and morbid. Who’s right? I don’t know?
Perhaps Pascal’s reasoning can help; he used it to reason the smart bet on God, what about vitamin D? If Szabo, the NYT and its four D experts are correct and D’s not a problem and we proceed anyway, we lose money, right? If the other 4,620 vitamin D researchers are right, and D is a problem - one the NYTs got wrong - and we don’t proceed, we lose more than money.
Sincerely, John Cannell, MD
www.vitamindcouncil.org. 4108 Del Rey Avenue, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, 805 712-0440
The attack on Dr. Michael Holick by Liz Szabo (NY Times, Aug.18) is a blatant example of using the Disinformation Playbook to discourage acceptance of a policy unfavorable to an industry, in this case, vitamin D supplementation with respect to Big Pharma and its allies. The general public has become aware of the importance of vitamin D in preventing and/or treating many diseases and conditions including
- allergic reactions,
- cardiovascular disease,
- dental caries,
- diabetes mellitus,
- multiple sclerosis,
- pneumonia, and
- as well as reducing risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes.
For the general public, observational studies often suffice. Clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation often fail due to being based on vitamin D doses. Trials are now being based on vitamin D levels. Such recent trials have demonstrated that vitamin D levels should be above 40-60 ng/ml to optimally prevent breast cancer and premature birth. With the Internet, individuals can find the relevant abstracts and papers through pubmed.gov and Scholar.Google.com. Thus, Pandora's Box has been opened for the benefit of the public and the dismay of Big Pharma.
- The man who sold America on vitamin D — and profited in the process
Medical News Network published the same KHN item
- Redit comments on the NYT story - generally disagree
- Vitamin D is the most popular supplement, and was in the first commercial supplement – cod liver oil – May 2018
- Huh? The New York Times says vitamin D health benefits are a right-wing conspiracy theory Natural News Aug 22
"Perhaps that is why the New York Times, long considered a propaganda rag for Big Pharma, is doing its best to cast a negative light on vitamin D. They can’t claim it’s dangerous because it isn’t, so they’ve taken a different approach: attacking Dr. Michael Holick, one of the vitamin’s biggest proponents. In the process, they’re taking the opportunity to cast doubt in people’s minds about the effectiveness of it."
A few images showing Vitamin D benefits (not hyperlinked to pages in VitaminDWiki)