Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am so pleased da Silva asked the question(1) and Bischoff-Ferrari
and colleagues gave a clear and convincing answer(2). I am a GP and
campaigner for vitamin D in Scotland, where the majority of the population
has levels below 50 nmol/l and a vast majority below 75 nmol/l (3,4,5).
The Institute of Medicine's conclusions of "bone-health-benefits-only" are
so much in contrast to the experiences I have treating my patients,
including those with cancer (6). This great letter exchange gives me the
arguments I need to doubt the conclusions of the Institute of Medicine in
order to convince our public health departments to recommend decent sized
vitamin D supplements, especially now, just two weeks before a NICE
meeting on the question of general vitamin D recommendations for the UK.
It provides clear proof for the benefits of higher doses of vitamin D.
Thank you for publishing it.
You might also be interested to know that the last newsletter of "The
Vitamin D Council", a campaign organisation, has just published the
cynical view that somewhere behind the Institute of Medicine's very
conservative recommendations are those who have an interest in keeping
them low, because more money can be made out of the eventual use of
vitamin D-analogues than out of plain vitamin D.(7)
1. Da Silva JAP. Clarifications needed, please. BMJ 2011;342:d2602
2. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willet WC, Orav JE, Kiel DP, Dawson-Hughes B. BMJ
2011;342d2608
3. Hyppoenen E, Power C. Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 y:
nationwide cohort study of dietary and lifestyle predictors. Am J Clin
Nutr 2007;85:860-8
4. Macdonald HM, Mavroeidi A, Fraser WD, Darling AL, Black AJ, Aucott L et
al. Sunlight and dietary contributions to the seasonal vitamin D
status of cohorts of healthy postmenopausal women living
at northerly latitudes: a major cause for concern? Osteoporosis Int. 2010
Nov 18. [Epub ahead of print]
5. Rhein HM. Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Scotland. BMJ
2008;336June28.
6. 'Sunshine vitamin' helps cancer patient live longer. Oliver Gillie,The
Times Scottish Edition, 4 Febr 2011
7. http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/releases.shtml
Thank you for clarification of vitamin D needs
I am so pleased da Silva asked the question(1) and Bischoff-Ferrari
and colleagues gave a clear and convincing answer(2). I am a GP and
campaigner for vitamin D in Scotland, where the majority of the population
has levels below 50 nmol/l and a vast majority below 75 nmol/l (3,4,5).
The Institute of Medicine's conclusions of "bone-health-benefits-only" are
so much in contrast to the experiences I have treating my patients,
including those with cancer (6). This great letter exchange gives me the
arguments I need to doubt the conclusions of the Institute of Medicine in
order to convince our public health departments to recommend decent sized
vitamin D supplements, especially now, just two weeks before a NICE
meeting on the question of general vitamin D recommendations for the UK.
It provides clear proof for the benefits of higher doses of vitamin D.
Thank you for publishing it.
You might also be interested to know that the last newsletter of "The
Vitamin D Council", a campaign organisation, has just published the
cynical view that somewhere behind the Institute of Medicine's very
conservative recommendations are those who have an interest in keeping
them low, because more money can be made out of the eventual use of
vitamin D-analogues than out of plain vitamin D.(7)
1. Da Silva JAP. Clarifications needed, please. BMJ 2011;342:d2602
2. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willet WC, Orav JE, Kiel DP, Dawson-Hughes B. BMJ
2011;342d2608
3. Hyppoenen E, Power C. Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 y:
nationwide cohort study of dietary and lifestyle predictors. Am J Clin
Nutr 2007;85:860-8
4. Macdonald HM, Mavroeidi A, Fraser WD, Darling AL, Black AJ, Aucott L et
al. Sunlight and dietary contributions to the seasonal vitamin D
status of cohorts of healthy postmenopausal women living
at northerly latitudes: a major cause for concern? Osteoporosis Int. 2010
Nov 18. [Epub ahead of print]
5. Rhein HM. Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Scotland. BMJ
2008;336June28.
6. 'Sunshine vitamin' helps cancer patient live longer. Oliver Gillie,The
Times Scottish Edition, 4 Febr 2011
7. http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/releases.shtml
helga.rhein@blueyonder.co.uk
Competing interests: No competing interests