Wednesday, December 1, 2010

New Report a Setback for Conservatives Using Vitamin-D to Support Global Warming

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For years, pharmaceutical companies and medical practitioners have not only been advising older patients to use vitamin D supplements but to increase their intake. The current recommendation is 600 international units (IUs), which is three times the former suggested dose of 200 IUs. Advocates insist that low levels of vitamin D contribute to heart disease and cancer. But new findings from nutritional scientists at Cornell University paint a much different picture, with escalating consumption rates creating the potential risk of kidney and tissue damage. A case study of vitamin D toxicity can be reviewed in this report.


Vitamin D is produced in the skin after exposure to ultraviolet B light from the sun or artificial sources. However, it occurs naturally in only a small range of foods. According to the American Journal of Epidemiology, “the risk of pancreatic cancer was doubled for those in the highest quintile of circulating vitamin D levels.”

This analysis has proven to be a major setback for conservative law makers who have been using vitamin D as a platform to support industrial pollution, increased greenhouse gas emissions and furthering the impact of global warming. Said Myron Eidelbach, an economic analyst from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association, “Healthcare isn’t really our bailiwick, but let’s look at the facts. Increased exposure to sunlight stimulates production of vitamin D in all vertebrates. Doctors insist that we need more vitamin D to ward off disease. By ending the regulation of energy companies and industry, we may be contributing to unprecedented levels of pollution, but the destruction of the ozone layer can only serve to enhance our exposure to sunlight. If we need vitamin D to survive, then we also need global warming. That’s just plain and simple logic.”

But environmental activists are now using the Cornell report on the dangers of vitamin D to promote their agenda to curb emissions and save the planet. Retorted Eidelbach, “You can’t have it both ways, tree-huggers. What’s it going to be? Save your life or save the planet? And remember, if you save the planet, you also kill free market enterprise. Without commerce, there’s no pharmaceuticals. So then how are you going to fight off your ADD, social anxiety depression, erectile dysfunction or restless leg syndrome? Think about that.”
Reactions: