Vitamin D mistake

You're most welcome to this talk. Now,

it turns out that the Institutes of Medicine in the United States, now the Academy of Medicine, has made a really quite inexplicable, simple school boy,

schoolgirl error on the amount of vitamin D that's required. Let me give you the bottom line quickly of this video, then you can decide if you want to watch. Now, this is from this paper

to watch. Now, this is from this paper here. a statistical error in the

here. a statistical error in the estimation of the recommended dietary allowance of vitamin D. And this paper actually came out in 2014.

So um they haven't quite got round to correcting this uh in the time since which is really quite incredible 11 years. So what this means

is in the United States uh if this state information we're going to look at is correct and we'll be looking at it in some detail in a minute. It means in the United States the recommended amount of

vitamin D is 15 times too low 15 times lower uh than it should be at least 15 times lower than it should be in the

United Kingdom. It's 22 times lower than

United Kingdom. It's 22 times lower than it should be. And this mistake seems to have been perpetuated for the last 11 years at least. Really hard to explain

how such a simplistic error could be made. And okay, people make mistakes,

made. And okay, people make mistakes, but then correct it the day after. Why

has this not been corrected in 11 years?

It's almost looks like they want people to stay unhealthy. I'm sure that's not the case, of course, but it's inexplicable how they haven't corrected

this simple school boy error. Come on,

you're on multi-million dollar budgets.

You can do better than this.

Uh, United Kingdom 22 times too low. And

it looks like the United Kingdom just followed the American guideline, but we'll see that in a minute. Now, the

Institutes of Medicine calculation, what they worked out was that 600 units of vitamin D, which is a very small dose, that's 15 micrograms, will give 97.5%

of the people of the population will achieve a target dose of 63 nanomles per liter. But even that dose is actually

liter. But even that dose is actually only 22 25.2 2 nanogs per mill.

Different ways of measuring it. The

conversion is 2.5.

So anyway, what they worked out was you give 600 units a day and nearly everyone 97.5% of people will achieve 63 nanom moles a

liter. What is the actual correct

liter. What is the actual correct calculation? 600 units a day. 97.5% of

calculation? 600 units a day. 97.5% of

the population will actually achieve 26.8.

So not the 63 that they hoped for.

but rather 26.8 uh which is uh 10.7 nanogs per mole which is well in the deficient range.

So they thought they were getting that they're actually getting that because of this simplistic error.

Quite incredible. Now if this error is corrected which it hasn't been but if it were to be corrected it would mean this uh requirements based on the correct

calculation not 600 as in the US not 400 units as in the US

as in the UK rather um why so the American authorities went for 600 it looks like the Brits just said well we'll have about the same don't want to be exactly the same don't want it look

like we're copying. So, we'll just alter it by a couple of hundred. I don't know what happened, but very unimpressive performance from both governments to be quite honest. Anyway, it turns out that

quite honest. Anyway, it turns out that the amount you would actually need to give 97.5% of the population 63 nanom moles per

liter is not 600, not 400, but 8,895 international units of vitamin D may be needed to accomplish the 97.5% of

individuals to achieve serum 25 vitamin D, that's the levels of vitamin D in the blood of more than 50 nanomles per liter.

Um, that's what this video is about.

Preposterously simple mistake, but with massive implications.

Now, this is the graph here. This is

what they This is what they thought they were getting.

They thought they would give 600 and most people would be above 50 and the average here will be about 63. That's

what they thought they were getting.

uh apart from their simple school boy error. So that's what they thought they

error. So that's what they thought they were getting.

What they actually were getting was this way way way lower levels with these being the individual data points. Nowhere near

what they thought they were getting.

Let's look back to what they thought they were getting again. That's what

they thought they were getting up here in the 63s. what they're

actually getting was down here in the 23s 24s um with the 600 units.

Couldn't make this up really. Anyway, a

little more detail.

Um so, the reason this happened, it's called the average versus individual mistake.

Now, I don't know much about statistics, but even I know about this, the average versus the individual mistake. What they

did was they took the average of groups not the average of individuals. I mean

yeah you know for for one of my junior students to make this kind of mistake would expect that for a multi-million dollar institute to make

this mistake. You really wouldn't expect

this mistake. You really wouldn't expect this. These people have got or can

this. These people have got or can employ the best statistitians in the country if they want to.

And yet this simple mistake has been allowed to be perpetuated all these years. Quite hard

to fathom really. Now to show how important this is in Canada.

Canada the estimated that from the diet people only get um 232 units of vitamin D from the diet.

Bear in mind it looks like the average number we need is 8,895.

So clearly from the diet we're not going to get it.

And uh but in Canada, in the United Kingdom and indeed a lot of the United States, in winter, you're not going to get anything. Hardly virtually nothing.

get anything. Hardly virtually nothing.

So it looks like a lot of people in Canada, in the United Kingdom, all throughout winter are probably getting about 323 international units of vitamin D when according to this study, they could do

with 8,895 units of vitamin D.

um as we say a huge difference even from the recommended amounts uh from the recommended supplements which of course most people don't take

um nothing like enough.

So uh that's the graph of what the study claimed up up here in the 60 odd range around about here

um with 600 units.

What we were actually getting was not up here as they thought they were getting. What we were actually getting

getting. What we were actually getting was down here in the very low levels. This is what we're actually getting. Very low levels.

Averaging out at about 23 instead of averaging out at about 63.

What a difference. huge difference

in what they thought they were getting and what they actually got after this ridiculous error.

So, Institutes of Medicine recommended daily amount 600 units per day aged 1 to age 70. Now, it's called the National

age 70. Now, it's called the National Academy of Medicine. UK is even worse recommending only 400 which is 10 micrograms per day. um utterly

preposterous, simplistic mistakes.

And vitamin D of course is useful for everything. I mean, I've just started

everything. I mean, I've just started putting a few things together. Vitamin D

reduces deaths in prostate cancer. For

every 20 nanom moles per liter, that's 8 nanogs per mill of circulating vitamin D, reduces the risk of cancer specific mortality by 9%.

That's paper we've looked at before in detail on this channel.

uh protects against uh pre-di diabetes developing 76% reduction in progression of pre-diabetes to diab diabetes between

high and low vitamin D levels colon cancer a known link all forms of immunity heart disease

diabetes type one you know making people vitamin D replete is the most basic lowcost lost public health intervention that could be

carried out.

Why have they not corrected this? Is it

deliberate? Do they know something we don't? Do they have motivations that

don't? Do they have motivations that aren't declared? I I don't know. How

aren't declared? I I don't know. How

could I possibly know that? Anyway,

let's go on with what we do know. Um

600 international units to achieve serum vitamin D 25 hydroxy vitamin D. That's

the circulating reservoir form in the blood of 59 moles a liter in 97% of individuals. Well, they were wrong.

individuals. Well, they were wrong.

Um, they were wrong. It wasn't enough.

Levels of 59 moles or more have been shown to prevent to uh benefit bone health and prevent injury from disease.

True, true, true. 50 nanom moles a liter is the level required to prevent ricketetts and uh bone disease.

But we're nowhere near this on the recommended amounts. Nowhere near it. On

recommended amounts. Nowhere near it. On

the calculations that they got wrong, it wasn't too bad. But of course, that's the amount to prevent bony

injury. You need more to prevent cancers

injury. You need more to prevent cancers and immune deficiencies and diabetes and dementia. You need more. Now, if you

dementia. You need more. Now, if you give people more vitamin D, they get less dementia. It's that simple.

less dementia. It's that simple.

Well, to be fair, the clinical trials haven't been carried out because no one's paid for them, but observational studies indicate this really through a whole range of well-conducted studies.

Um, quite incredible. We're all remaining

quite incredible. We're all remaining ill because of this these recommendations.

Um, so it's not just bony injury, not just ricketetts. Institute of Medicine

just ricketetts. Institute of Medicine based their RDA for vitamin D on an aggregation of 10 supplement studies. So

this is this is why they got it wrong.

Carried out during the winter months. So

locations above the 50th parallel. Now

just to give you some indication, all of Canada probably is above the 50th parallel and in the UK um all of the UK is above the 50th parallel as well

because that's the 51st there. So um you know basically in winter Canada and the United States

we don't make any we get two 250 whatever it is from um 250 units from diet unless you're eating huge amounts of cod

liver oil and most of us don't.

Yep.

Right.

um carried out during the winter months above the 50th parallel.

But even even in even in Australia, vitamin D deficiency is common because people keep out the sun so much.

Institute of Medicine uh regressed 32 studies to give the average dose. So

they're looking at the dose that you give compared to the plasma ratio, but they got it wrong.

It makes sense how much should you take to get the right amount in the blood, but they got it wrong.

uh on the basis of this Institute of Medicine estimated that 600 units of vitamin D would achieve an average of 63. But they were wrong. They were

63. But they were wrong. They were

wrong.

The correct requirements are nearly 9,000 a day.

This dose is well in excess of the current RDF 600 units per day and tolerable upper limit of 4,000 units a day that's suggested. So it looks like

their tolerable limits are also wrong.

certainly need to be reviewed. So, we'll

give that a big question mark, shall we?

Both countries here really need to get their act together. This is appalling situation.

The authors of the paper say the public health and clinical implications of the miscalculated RDA's vitamin D are serious, very much so.

With a current recommendation of 600 IUs a day, bone health objectives and disease and injury prevention will not be met, let alone the diabetes, let alone the dementia, let alone the

cancers, but certainly won't be met. We

recommend that the IDA for vitamin D be reconsidered to allow for appropriate public health and clinical decision making.

Um, I would say that is absolutely true.

Let me just show you where all this came from. Um so this is the this start here.

from. Um so this is the this start here.

Uh yeah this is the study a statistical error in the estimation of the recommended dietary of vitamin D. Uh

that's the national academy uh website health for everyone everywhere.

It might be helped by getting your vitamin D levels sorted out. National

was the national institutes of health.

It's now the National Academy of Medicine allegedly.

Uh that's the NHS joke, I mean recommendations for 400 a day.

And that's another good paper that we might cover in some more detail, the big vitamin D mistake. So that's kind of where this is coming from. Now, for

those of you that are interested, I'm just going to tell you very briefly how they got this wrong. I'm just going to go through it quickly, but I'm going to put the full uh the full notes in the description.

So, the mistake was that they made the average versus individual mistake. They

were taking the averages of groups, not individuals.

So, the Institute of Medicine's goal was to find a vitamin D dose that ensured 97.5% of individuals reached a healthy blood level of 50 nanomles per liter. But of

course we now believe that is too low for many other aspects of health. As

we've mentioned the statistical error occurred because the institutes of medicine analyze the average of different studies rather than the data of individual participants. So what they

did was they took the average from studies. What they should have done is

studies. What they should have done is go into those studies, extracted the data from all the individuals, put them on a new spreadsheet and recrunched it.

That's called a meta analysis.

But that seemed to be beyond them.

Strangely enough, inexplicably the statistical error because the inst the statistical error uh occurred because the institutes of medicine analyzed the average differences between

studies rather than individuals. They

looked at 10 studies and took the average dose levels achieved in those studies. They calculated a statistical

studies. They calculated a statistical range confidence interval based on on those averages of the studies not the individuals.

It's so basic really. They found that 600 international units, 97.5% of the study averages would hit the target. In other words, if they did

target. In other words, if they did this, the stud 97.5% of the studies would be correct, not 97.5% of the individuals.

So the problem is that there's much less variation between averages than there is between individuals. Of course. Of

between individuals. Of course. Of

course. By using the averages, the Institute of Medicine accidentally smoothed out the data. They assumed that if the average person in the study was fine, then almost everyone was. This is

ridiculous. This is inductive thinking.

You know, it's extrapolating from the individual situation to the general.

It's like saying, you know what? Um, my

my my my uh my uncle my uncle Stan had a sore foot and he had the orange pills.

Therefore, you've got a sore foot. You

need the orange pills as well. It's

ridiculous.

So an analogy from classrooms. Imagine you want to ensure every student has a pass grade. The Institute of Medicine

pass grade. The Institute of Medicine method, they looked at the average scores of 30 different classrooms. They set a curriculum so that 97.5% of classrooms

would have a passing average. But the

reality is even in a classroom with a passing average, there are students who fail below the amount of vitamin D required. So to correct this to ensure

required. So to correct this to ensure 97.5% of students pass you have to look at the lowest performing students not the class average.

So when the authors of this paper recalculated the number using the variation of individuals who of course are much more variable

than studies they found that the current RDA of 600 IUs does not cover 97.5% of the population. Instead it only ensured

the population. Instead it only ensured that 97.5 of people reached blood levels of 26.8 nanom moles per liter far below

the target range.

The actual amount needed is 8,895 preposterous school boy error.

Anyway, let me show you about a day out I had recently just to finish off on something a bit nicer.

Slightly higher bench than average.

There's a nice doggy. So, we must be in Sllith because this is the Ray Lonsdale and it's a look at the view and it's a

completely magnificent piece of work in iron true artistry.

quite beautiful and he's done a series of works round about the north of England his workshops in the north of England somewhere in the northeast I think Ray Lonsdale look him up on the

internet incredible work sculpture of the people by the people for the people proper art the way it should be looks

like something says something nothing pretentious you might have gathered it's my kind of out.

>> When you get a sunny day in uh in Cumbrio winter, it's actually quite nice. Thank you for watching.

nice. Thank you for watching.