No replies to this topic

[maineman]

Today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association has an excellent study where they looked at available vitamin D levels across several populations (white, black) and they found an inverse correlation with higher levels available early in life with a decreased incidence of MS. The discussion is telling about how we approach research and how we DO NOT jump to simple conclusions. The authors/researchers admit that there are so many variables in life that it is impossible, given the data we have, to conclude that higher levels of VItamin D were responsible, and state that much more time and research will be needed. They finish up by saying that this study does NOT endorse Vitamin D supplements as a prevention for MS. This is what makes science so great. These guys have spent their lives in labs, studying humans, blood, lab tests, etc. They are doing it in order to get to the truth. They have NO vested interest. They WILL NOT benefit from Vitamin D sales, etc. They only want to do something good for others. If it ultimately tu