skip to Main Content
Vitamin D

If Your Doctor Recommends Against Vitamin D, Here’s Why

Vitamin D is known to reduce bone loss, but the NEJM advises against its use.

The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which has recently tarnished its reputation by refusing to publish articles unfavorable to popular prescription drugs, is barreling forward this week with its anti-natural, anti-health approach to medicine in asserting that vitamin D should not be universally recommended for postmenopausal women with low levels of vitamin D, and stating that we need a 5-year randomized trial before we can safely recommend its use for reducing the risk of heart disease or cancer.*

The journal describes a postmenopausal woman in her sixties with low bone density but not outright osteoporosis who has less than 1% risk of sustaining a hip fracture in the next 10 years and recommends against giving her supplemental vitamin D to reduce her risk because a 1% risk is, apparently, too low to fuss over and so there is no need to treat the low vitamin D level.

When it comes to using drugs, in contrast to Vitamin D, it seems no risk is too low to treat

Let’s say this same postmenopausal woman also has a less than 1% chance of a heart attack. Previous journal articles have made the recommendation to prescribe a cholesterol-lowering medication to treat this level of risk. In fact, if her risk of heart attack were as low as 1 in 1000, that is one-tenth of a percent, the recommendation would still be to write a prescription for a pill that, unlike vitamin D, has side effects and risks including but not limited to depression, memory problems, joint pains, fatigue, liver inflammation, immune system alteration, heart failure, kidney problems, and more. Read the package insert.

This is the kind of attitude that disgusts people. What the NEJM and the what’s-good-for-patients-is-what’s-good-for-business oriented medical leadership fails to consider is that it also drives patients away from their primary care doctors towards alternative practitioners who think in more pro-active, pro-natural terms. And this is not good for the business of medicine.

Promoting An Unethical Approach to Healthcare

The real problem is this mentality violates the doctor’s prime directive First do no harm by requiring people to get sick before we step in to help.

For goodness sake, we know we don’t get as much sun as people used to, and we don’t eat liver or eggs from pastured animals like people used to, so our intake of vitamin D is less than it used to be. It is wildly irresponsible to suggest, as the journal does, that we need to do a 5-year randomized controlled trial before we can safely advise people to supplement with D. During those five years, thousands of study participants with known low levels of vitamin D will continue to lose bone mass, suffer suboptimal immune function, and develop calcium deposits in their arteries and tendons.

We have, for the last decades, stood by and watched as more and more people get sick, and, in no small measure, this continued non-action is threatening to destroy the fabric of health in this country by ruining our economy.

Back to basics: When “randomized controlled trials” don’t exist, use common sense

Along with Dr. Michael Hollick, a former Harvard physician who is a leading expert on Vitamin D, I advise everyone to take 2000 I.U. per day, and to never take calcium supplements without also taking magnesium and vitamin D. We do have plenty of science telling us that three nutrients work together, along with protein, vitamin K, and vitamin A, to help keep your body strong, healthy, and away from the emergency room!

* Vitamin D Insufficiency, Supplement to the NEJM 2011: 364:248-254

Dr. Cate

With over two decades of clinical experience and expertise in genetic and biochemical research, Dr. Cate can help you to reverse metabolic disease and reshape your body.

This Post Has 4 Comments

  1. I don’t know your mothers history and obviously can’t give you official medical advice (the usual disclaimers apply) but do not know of any medical condition or medication that would cause problems with these normal doses of D or see any reason not to get her started even before you get her tested, and she should be tested to make sure she’s not so low that 2000 is inadequate. Vitamin D administration can also correct abnormal calcium, magnesium, and parathyroid hormone levels, which are common in frail elderly people who are not supplemented. Best to you both.

  2. Hi Catey, thank you for your wise words. I have been supplementing with Vitamin D for about 2 years and my levels are pretty good. I have also been told to be careful when giving vitamin D to people over 60 so thank you for your article, it confirms my questioning. I know my mother is severely deficient although she has not been tested. Would you recommend that I start her at a higher dosage to get her levels up or just take the 2000IU’s per day. Thank you for any opinions!

  3. Right. Lipitor, now that’s scientifically proven to make you thin and beautiful, or whatever the commercial said.
    Let me know when you’re ready for your clinicals.

  4. I just found this blog after your appearance on Jimmy Moore’s podcast. This is a great article. I am a physician assistant student. It kills me when our lecturers tell us that certain things I’ve accepted as helpful have not been “proven scientifically.” This includes vitamin D, magnesium supplementation, probiotics, and low-carb diets. The amount of misinformation in medical/health schools is egregious. I am interested in integrative health, assuming I’ll find a supervising physician who will take me! I am hoping to helps others improve their lives through natural, proven measures — including vitamin D!

Comments are closed.

Back To Top