The Nov. issue of Scientific American has quite an accurate 8-page article on vitamin D, and I recommend reading it. Some key points:
o "Extensive evidence now shows that D has potent anticancer actions and also serves as an important regulator of immune system response. Moreover, many of D's newly recognized benefits are maximized when it is present in the bloodstream at levels considerably higher than found in many populations."
o "At least 1000 genes are believed to be regulated by D."
o "One gene ramped up by [D] is well known for triggering growth arrest in normal cells whose DNA is damaged, reducing the risk to become cancerous."
o "Researchers have come to appreciate that a number of D's protective actions in the body might have evolved from functions originating at the molecule's source, in the skin. The growth-arresting influence of D on cancer cells makes sense in this light because excess UVB exposure is known to damage the DNA of skin cells, which can lead to them becoming cancerous."
o "Most people obtain D through sun exposure, and circulating D levels generally diminish in populations of increased latitude...a clear association is seen between increasing latitude and increased risk of several illnesses...For example, scientists...found an inverse relationship among 79 pairs of twins between increased sun exposure during childhood and an increased risk of MS [an auto-immune disease]."
o "Population rates of cancers...increase twofold from south to north in the US, for instance."
o "Sunshine induced D toxicity has never been observed." (Note: People in sunny/tropical regions easily get 5000 I.U. to 10,000 I.U. daily, as it only takes 5 to 15 mins of exposure for the body to create these levels. Even studies that have put people on much higher dosages for months reported no toxicity, though I would recommend higher dosages unless a person has cancer that they're fighting, then I'd go as high as 30,000 I.U. for at least 3-4 months.)
Yet, even with all of the mounting evidence, how many oncologists will recommend to their patients to supplement with vitamin D? My guess: Maybe 1%. Yet, pharmaceutical companies are hard at work trying to create a non-natural vitamin D mimic, that they can patent, and then rake in billions. Even though the real thing is already here, and as cheap as two stops at Starbucks.
