Web Toolbar by Wibiya
(NaturalNews) -- The United States government has just crossed the threshold of nutritional insanity with an announcement that postmenopausal women should avoid taking vitamin D. This announcement, made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, is tantamount to declaring war on nutrition. In a nation where 90+ percent of the population is chronically deficient in vitamin D, any government edict that encourages people to avoid this lifesaving vitamin will only result in more cancer, more Alzheimer's disease, more bone fractures, more diabetes and more kidney disease.... which is, of course, exactly what the medical establishment wants. After all, how are the drug companies supposed to make money treating patients with cancer if they prevent cancer themselves by using dirt-cheap vitamin D?The mainstream media, predictably, has dutifully followed the government's anti-nutrition advice by distorting the conclusions of the study and running headlines like this one in USA Today, the corporate-run disinfo outlet:Panel to postmenopausal women: Don't take vitamin D, calcium(http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-07/panel-vitamin-d-...)The authors of this article, Janice Lloyd, Liz Szabo and Nanci Hellmich, should be renamed the Three Stooges of Mainstream Journalism for their absurdly inaccurate headline. For starters, the study covered in the article only mentions that postmenopausal women shouldn't take low-doses of vitamin D combined with calcium. According to the U.S. government a "low dose" is something around 200 IUs daily -- a virtually useless quantity of vitamin D. Most nutritionists recommend 4,000 IUs daily or even more.So what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force really determined is that taking a ridiculously low dose of vitamin D isn't very helpful to your health. The logical conclusion from this is that people should take HIGHER doses of vitamin D which have, through hundreds of studies, been shows to help prevent cancer, increase bone mineral density, prevent kidney disease and so on.So the accurate headline in USA Today, if the paper actually were interested in educating and informing readers about nutrition, would be, "Postmenopausal women need higher doses of vitamin D." But instead, the headline read, "Don't take vitamin D, calcium."It's yet another example of not just inaccurate reporting, but irresponsible reporting that puts people's lives at risk. If Vitamin D had a lawyer, it would sue USA Today for defamation. With this kind of reporting from one of the nation's most widely-circulated papers, it's no wonder the population remains nutritionally illiterate and suffering from runaway degenerative disease.
There are 0 comments on this post
Copyright © 2020 Design & Developed by AgoraPublishing.com.