Could Vitamin D Be The Victim Of An Unintended Conspiracy?

[tex]

Hi All,

It has become abundantly clear that many medical "experts" in positions of authority, are going out of their way to resist any proposed changes in suggested Recommended Daily Allowances, (RDAs), of vitamin D. While the evidence in favor of huge increases in vitamin D RDAs appears to be overwhelming, (with absolutely no apparent negative indications), the decision-makers who hold the keys to making those changes, continue to stonewall any efforts to get those RDAs raised to numbers that would be much more realistic for good health. The obvious question is "why?" What could their motives possibly be?

Are they, for example,


1. Afraid that new quidelines would create a health risk for some individuals

What health risk? There are no negative indications.

2. Too lazy to go to the trouble of determining new guidelines

Maybe, but I doubt it - surely no one is that lazy.

3. Afraid of potential lawsuits, for not increasing those numbers long ago, which could have prevented many, many unnecessary health issues, by millions of consumers

Maybe, but I doubt it - I'm pretty sure their job description exempts them from that risk.

4. Afraid that admitting the truth might subject them to professional or public ridicule, because it took them so long to get around to correcting the issue

Could be, but I don't see how continuing to postpone the change could possibly help.

5. Afraid that the widespread use of adequate amounts of vitamin D supplements by the general population would put many doctors and hospitals out of business, in the long run

As ridiculous as this seems, maybe there's some substance in it.

6. A bunch of milksops and pantywaists, with a "deer in the headlights mentality", afraid to make such radical changes in their recommendations

Well, let's hope not.

What on earth could be their problem? As individuals, I can see how no one wants to step forward, and stick their neck out to make the changes, but in effect, this creates an inadvertent conspiracy against any changes, as they all stick to the same game plan.

If there were actually any degree of risk involved in increasing the recommendations, I could see a reason why some of those "experts" might be inclined to drag their feet, but where's the risk? The sad fact is, as long as they maintain the current recommendations, they are effectively degrading the health of the general population, and creating the need for more doctor and hospital visits, by negatively influencing health decisions of millions of people who don't know any better, and who trust them. Some suspicious souls might argue that they are intentionally degrading the public health, while enriching their own bank accounts, (and the bank accounts of their cohorts), as a result of their position. That's not a very flattering position to be caught in.

Tex

[Rosie]

Tex,

7. Professional jealousy, because the self-proclaimed insider group of "experts" weren't the ones who figured this out.

That's my opinion, based on lots of experience with professors and academic MD's. I've seen a lot of it, of course on a much smaller scale, but the attitude is there. For example, when I was in graduate school, if any of us students came up with a good idea, it tended to be dismissed. Then maybe a few months later, the professor would come up with the very same idea, but not give any credit to the student. We could never be sure if it was intentional, or if after enough time the professor actually thought it was his idea. I'm not saying that the resistance to increasing the Vit D RDA is intentional, but the tendency is to not give much credit to discoveries by "outsiders" is very real. What needs to happen is for an "insider" to publish some research showing what we've known all along, and then it will be accepted with enthusiasm.

Rosie

[tex]

Rosie,

Excellent point. I think that one ranks way up the scale of probable reasons. I knew there was something major that I was overlooking, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Thanks.

Tex

[Joefnh]

Tex being in academia, I see this too frequently. To many 'old guard' gate keepers stand in the way of progress. For them progress equals a loss of stature or power, both of which are bad for them; progress many times challenges the previous research, positions and conclusions. I know it sounds archaic but it is the way it is.


Thanks for posting this Tex



--Joe

[harma]

it is exactly the same as with the gluten story. I don't believe in conspiracy theories (that would be ifit would be done it on purpose to achieve something bad or evil or control something). I think the people in control, the experts that dictate medical research and medicine suffer from tunnel vision. And a lack of an open mind. And rusted into their habits, believes and beliefs. Also fear I think, fear for change, fear for that their knowledge is overtaken.

Also what I think is a big problem in science in general (not only in science but everywhere), is the lack of the capability of scientists, doctors and specialists to see the whole picture. There are a lot of experts and very cleaver scientist, but only in the field of their expertise. New views and interesting developments occur by combining things or looking from another prospective to things. Also very powerful tool is combining different fields of expertise.

[tex]

Good point, Harma. Other areas of interest typically seem to be completely off the radar for many specialists. They really don't care what is going on outside of their area of specialization, and often they will prescribe a medication that is contraindicated for a patient, simply because they don't bother to consider the drugs that the patient is already taking. Also, in many cases, I have a hunch that they consider it the PCP's responsibility to make sure that all the drugs being taken by a patient are not listed as contraindicated with any of the drugs already being used by the patient. Too many of them have the old "not my job" syndrome.

Tex