The medical professionals are messing with us again. Now they say vitamin D is bad and they reversed their policy on mammograms. When will they get their act together already? I'm confused, today I delve into this and interview supplement expert Matt Mosby on what we really should be taking.


Dec 1, 2010by tracey Comments

I am truly sick of the medical profession confusing us with their ever-changing proclamations on what is good and what is either bad or unnecessary.

In the last twenty-four hours two studies have been either refuted, questioned or totally taken back.

The first one is the whole issue of whether women should get mammograms starting at forty or fifty. For a long time they were saying anyone over forty should get one each year.  Then within the last year a study, one of the endless studies that are written in pig Latin when you go online and try and understand them, said in fact they had decided that getting them so early really did nothing and they were upping the age to fifty.

This is a time where being over fifty I personally didn’t have to deal with it. But I thought long and hard about women in their forties who might take this as an opportunity to put off the test for up to a decade. It seemed lame to me, of course on some level getting them earlier had to be a better choice.  They do catch cancer often times before it grows and as the new report that was put out yesterday now says, they not only can save lives, but women who get mammograms earlier are winding up needing fewer mastectomies.  I sit here and think how many women in their forties are now booking appointments with their radiologists today to get a mammogram? How many women may be walking around with something that had it been checked earlier might be less of something?  I pray none, if any. But I doubt that to be the case. Common sense dictates it should be done.  I always feel that it’s the insurance companies that stand behind these inconclusive studies. Let’s face it do they want to pay for American women to start having mammograms in their forties or their fifties?  I hate the fact that once again conflicting information was fed to the public, but am happy that they have now taken it back. The question is why do they blast it before they really know?

And then, then we get to a less important but sometimes even more confusing info which is about which vitamins are good for you and which are not.   Yesterday we heard that after having it’s benefits  touted , Vitamin D is not all it was cracked up to be.  They did the exact same thing with Vitamin E.  For years it was everybody’s favorite, then over night, “stay away if may end up causing more harm than good.”

I am somewhat of a recovering vtamin junkie. There was a time when Glenn and I took up to forty vitamins a day. I would make up these little plastic bags once a month filled with whatever the latest report said might work. If they said turmeric, we downed turmeric pills.  If they said acai adds years to your life, acai it was.  And I can’t even tell you who “they” were; sometimes it was just a sign at Whole Foods.

I ‘m not sure I felt any better; I do know I had a stomach ache a lot of the time; too many vitamins have a way of doing that.

I did cease and desist the once heralded than maligned E and replaced it with the almighty D.  Originally they said 600 units of D, then they upped it. I think for the last six months Glenn and I have been taking 2000 units. I know I have. Glenn is one of those guys who feels if one Aleve is good than three must be better. So my guess is his D was upped to 4000 units a day. And even one of our doctors who told us to stop it with the E was totally behind the D.

Then yesterday, they say ‘hold on D may do nothing at all and not only that they took one of the grand poobas of supplements Calcium down with it.

“Most North Americans get enough calcium and vitamin D through their diets, according to a comprehensive report containing updated dietary reference intakes (DRIs), released Tuesday by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The report also concludes that there is “insufficient evidence” to suggest that low levels of either nutrient could be associated with a range of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, although the authors underscored the importance of calcium and vitamin D in maintaining bone health.”

So it’s good/bad? Good? Bad?

And to make matters more confounding they went on.

“They stopped short, however, of saying that vitamin D, which has been a hot topic in cardiovascular research and other disease arenas, may not play some as-yet-unknown role: Their current conclusion “does not mean that future research will not reveal a compelling relationship between vitamin D and another health outcome,” they write.”

Read this again “may not play some as-yet-unknown role”What does that even mean?

I’m totally confused.  When I finish this I’m calling my vitamin Guru Matt Mosby at to see what he says. I also need to find out if he shipped the vitamin D I ordered last week and if he hasn’t do I really need it.

Here is a short interview I did with Matt on the subject of supplements back in September when I was on Face to Facebook.

You see how little he says one actually needs.

So after you watch the video you might want to go ask Matt yourselves. His products all come in biodegradable containers and have no dyes or additives. And he knows a lot. And he actually sticks by what he says.