Why Pharmaceutical Companies Fear Vitamin D: Hidden Truths

Vitamin D represents one of the most studied bioactive molecules in the history of medicine, with more than 84,000 scientific publications dedicated to investigating its effects. However, there's a notable discrepancy between the overwhelming evidence of its benefits and institutional resistance to promoting its use. This paradox has deep roots that deserve examination.

The conflict of interest in vitamin D research

The pharmaceutical industry exerts considerable influence over medical research and health recommendations. This influence manifests in multiple ways when it comes to vitamin D:

The revealed disinformation manual

According to presentations by the Union of Concerned Scientists, there are five identifiable strategies used to minimize the benefits of nutrients like vitamin D:

1. Falsification: Designing studies with inadequate methodologies for nutrients, applying criteria created for drugs

2. Harassment: Systematic discrediting of researchers who publish results favorable to vitamin D

3. Divergence: Artificial creation of scientific uncertainty where consensus exists

4. Screening: Purchasing credibility through alliances with academic institutions

5. Manipulation: Undue influence over regulatory agencies to affect public policies

This systematic pattern explains why, despite thousands of positive studies, official vitamin D recommendations remain conservative.

The specific case of Harvard and the anti-sun campaign

Harvard University represents an emblematic case of institutional resistance to recognizing vitamin D benefits:

"Harvard will not publish anything positive about vitamin D"

This unwritten policy responds to a fundamental conflict: vitamin D directly competes with numerous patented medications to treat conditions that could be prevented or improved with optimal levels of this vitamin.

The anti-sun campaign and its corporate protagonists

Two pharmaceutical companies specializing in dermatology, Leo Pharma and Almirall, have actively promoted "sun phobia" while marketing synthetic vitamin D products to treat skin problems such as:

• Psoriasis
• Eczema
• Dermatitis

The irony is evident: they discourage sun exposure (natural source of vitamin D) while selling synthetic derivatives of the same vitamin.

Silenced historical evidence

20th century solar sanatoriums

In the early 20th century, sanatoriums dedicated to heliotherapy (treatment through sun exposure) existed worldwide to treat:

• Tuberculosis
• Chronic skin infections
• Various immunological disorders

These treatments showed remarkable results until they were displaced by the development of antibiotics, much more profitable for the pharmaceutical industry.

The scientific connection between vitamin D and serious diseases

Cancer and vitamin D: overwhelming evidence

We're not talking about isolated studies, but "a deluge of research" demonstrating multiple mechanisms by which vitamin D:

• Inhibits uncontrolled cell proliferation
• Promotes apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells
• Reduces tumor angiogenesis (formation of blood vessels that feed tumors)
• Modulates the immune system for better recognition of malignant cells

The "vitamin D resistance" phenomenon

Dr. Coimbra from Brazil has identified a crucial phenomenon: genetic resistance to vitamin D. This explains why:

• Some people need much higher doses than others
• Blood levels may appear normal while tissues remain deficient
• Autoimmune diseases frequently respond to vitamin D megadoses (Coimbra protocol)

This resistance implies that standard recommended doses are insufficient for many people, especially those with predisposition to autoimmune diseases.

Optimal levels vs. officially recommended levels

The critical discrepancy

While official recommendations suggest minimum levels of 20 ng/ml and "sufficient" levels of 30 ng/ml, independent scientific evidence indicates:

• Optimal levels: minimum 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L)
• Daily dose needed for most adults: 10,000 IU
• Therapeutic levels for autoimmune conditions: 80-100 ng/ml (under medical supervision)

Effective sources of vitamin D

To reach optimal levels, consider:

1. Regular sun exposure: 20 minutes of exposure during safe hours provides approximately 10,000 IU

2. Cod liver oil: One tablespoon provides approximately 10,000 IU of vitamin D3

3. Daily supplementation: Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the most effective form

Testing your levels: a basic necessity

The only way to know your real vitamin D status is through blood tests. Practical options exist:

• Conventional tests requested by your doctor
• Home test kits (with dried blood samples)

Recommended frequency is 2-3 tests annually, adjusting supplementation according to results.

The intersection with environmental factors

The impact of glyphosate and other toxins

Herbicides like glyphosate have a dual impact:

1. They interfere with vitamin D synthesis and metabolism
2. They act as antibiotics, damaging the intestinal microbiota that facilitates vitamin D absorption

Widespread exposure to these compounds significantly contributes to the vitamin D deficiency epidemic.

Conclusion: an informed decision

Scientific evidence about vitamin D is overwhelming, but economic forces have created a distorted narrative. To protect your health:

1. Verify your vitamin D levels through blood tests
2. Maintain levels above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L)
3. Consider regular sun exposure as primary source
4. Use quality supplements when necessary

Vitamin D represents an exceptional case where available scientific knowledge dramatically contrasts with official recommendations. This discrepancy is not accidental, but the result of a system where commercial interests frequently prevail over public health.