From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Prof. Moon et al. on "vitamin" D
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:23:52 GMT


Steve Dyer writes:

>Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
                 ^^^^^^

This is not quite correct.  Ted Altar, myself, merely typed what follows. 
The purpose of the following QUOTES from Dr. Moon being to provide
concrete evidence countering Rich's false charge that I misrepresented
what Dr. Moon himself said about vitamin D.


>>    "'Vitamin D' is an ANABOLIC SECO-STEROID HORMONE (or more
>>    appropriately, a group of hormones).  The family name of
>>    these hormones is "CALICIFEROL", due to their calcium-
>>    controlling functions"  (emphasis his)
>
>The word anabolic is not correct here.
>
>My God, how many times does this need to be repeated?  We have rehashed
>this argument over and over again, and this summary of yours is full of
>mistruths and distortions.  Posting it over and over again does not make
>it true.


Try to read more carefully.  No argument is being presented except
to document that Dr. Moon indeed said that calciferol can be deemed 
an "anabolic seco-steroid hormone"  If you wish to disagree and 
simply say that he's "wrong", fine, but that is all that you've said.  
Again, my choice of whom to here believe will be Professor Moon.  
Sorry Steve, but we must all make our choice and follow our own 
best lights as to whom to believe.


>
>>     "none of the known steroid hormones are safe to use over
>>     prolonged periods, and except for calciferol, all are restricted
>>     to use by prescription only"
>
>This is patently false.  First, there are many steroid hormones which are
>safe to use over prolonged periods, birth control pills containing female
>sex hormones, for example.  

You can now get birth control pills without prescription in the US?

If true, then remember that here in Canada the situation is quite 
different and Dr. Moon in this context was referring to the Canadian 
situation.



>Second, just because some steroid hormones are
>dangerous to use chronically, this says nothing about any particular steroid,
>because as has been pointed out again and again and again (I don't think Ted
>reads this stuff actually) steroids vary widely in their specificity of action.
>Needing a prescription for hydrocortisone says nothing about the desirability
>of needing it for vitamin D.  And, (not that this is relevant to anything but
>the dumb argument above) topical hydrocortisone is available without
>prescription in many countries, including the US and Canada.

Do you eat topical hydrocortisone?  Come on now, try to stop looking 
for error that is not there and simply more open-mindedly understand 
what is being said. 


>
>>and  "Vitamin D, or calicferol, is one of the most 
>>     potent steroid hormones available and a very
>>     toxic food additive"
>
>To describe something as "potent" means that a very small dose suffices
>to achieve its desired effect.  This is a content-free statement in the
>context of supplementation.  And it's not toxic in the levels used in
>food supplements and supplemented foods.

Moon's point is that it is the ACCUMULATED intake from all sources 
that has been documented to indeed make for overdoeses even above 
CURRENT RDA levels.  He cited an example of some women here
in B.C. Canada.  If it were not for the unncessary supplementation 
at present levels in certain foods, we would not have this overdose 
problem.  Moon and others have suggested alternative methods of 
delivery besides the present shot-gun approach of adding it to 
commonly used foodstuffs.


>
>>and  "most people don't realized that it is a vitamin at all"
>
>I think you mangled this.  Perhaps you meant "...don't realize that it's a
>steroid...", to which I say: "So what?"  Its chemical family isn't relevant.

Again, you sloppily read as *my* statement something that I've clearly 
stated repeatedly were Dr. Moon's words.  Take it up with him if you 
wish.  I frankly don't accept your `ex cathedra' pronoucements as the 
final word on the subject.

>
>>and  "This is one hormone people should avoid  consuming unless
>>     there is a clear medical reason for its use.  Infants under
>>     the age of two who are not exposed to the ultraviolet rays
>>     and of the sun, lactating women who do not get sufficient
>>     exposure to solar ultraviolet or people who are confined
>>     indoors, such as elderly invalids, may need calciferol
>>     replacement therapy, but they are a minority of the
>>     population"
>
>Or individuals in northern climates.  To hear this assertion, you'd
>imagine that rickets was never a public health problem.

To hear you speak, you would think the Professor Moon wants to promote 
widespread rickets, as if he had never heard about rickets before.  
Moon and others rationally believe that rickets in northern climates 
need NOT be an inevitable occurance should we fail to add calciferol to t
the general food supply.  Of course rickets is a health problem.  NO here 
has ever said that it wasn't.  Another Straw Man argument for you to
beat up on?

Rickets is indeed a health problem, especially as it occurred in 
those coal smoke darken industrial British towns during the 19th 
and early 20th Century.  The sun was literally obscured even 
during the summers in some of those industrial towns and of course 
rickets became widespread.  But it was not equally widespread all 
across Britian or Northern Europe.  

Now, Moon and others have pointed out that OTHER methods of delivery 
are possible.  To state that the only method of delivery to individuals 
of risk will always remain one of adding calciferol to the general 
food supply seems unduly unimaginative.

					

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition