Vitamin D benefits and sources. Useful infographic with lots of elements - molecular structure, banners, medical icons. Vector illustration in bright colours isolated on a light beige background.

by Allie Parker
Health Impact News

Child Abuse Pediatricians (CAPs) use several types of “injuries” to claim child abuse, thrusting innocent families into months, even yearlong battles, with the courts and Child Protection Services (CPS) to get their children back, if they get them back at all. 

Most of these “injuries” have explanations that are never looked into or investigated by CAPs. A few of these explanations include:

  • Birth Trauma
  • Short Falls
  • Congenital Diseases
  • Metabolic Diseases
  • Rickets

American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized a need for Vitamin D supplementation for over a decade

A study published in Pediatrics, August 2003, provided the history of rickets in the US and concluded with how rickets was all but eradicated by the 1930’s:

The bridging of the knowledge that photosynthesized vitamin D and vitamin D in cod-liver oil were similar was responsible for the eventual conquest of rickets. By the 1930s, the use of cod-liver oil in the treatment and prevention of rickets became common place. The eventual public health prevention initiative of fortification of milk with vitamin D led to eradication of rickets in the United States.

In April 2005, JAMA Pediatrics published a study “Reemerging Nutritional Rickets.”The study concluded: 

“Clinical rickets was evident in 59 (91%) of the 65 patients at study entry and most of them were breastfed (48 of 65; 74%).”

The American Academy of Pediatrics doubled their recommended daily intake of vitamin D for infants exclusively breastfed, or who consume less than 1 liter per day of formula, from 200 ius/day to 400ius/day.  

According to an article published in Pediatrics, April 2010, even with this increase, only 5% to 13% of infants who consumed breast milk and no formula met both the 2003 and 2008 recommendations. Other results include: 

Among mixed-fed infants, 28% to 35% met the 2003 recommendation, but only 9% to 14% would have met the 2008 recommendation. Among those who consumed formula but no breast milk, 81% to 98% met the 2003 recommendation, but only 20% to 37% would have met the 2008 recommendation.

The conclusion:

“Our findings suggest that most US infants are not consuming adequate amounts of vitamin D according to the 2008 AAP recommendation. Pediatricians and health care providers should encourage parents of infants who are either breastfed or consuming <1 L/day of infant formula to give their infants an oral vitamin D supplement.”

Study after study proves the need and positive effects of Vitamin D supplementation in all ages

In 2018, a field trial, by Rostami et al, was published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, to determine the effectiveness of a prenatal screening program for optimizing Vitamin D levels and preventing pregnancy complications.  

This study also included how to identify a safe regimen for pregnant woman.  

The results of this trial concluded, negative pregnancy outcomes, such as pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus and preterm delivery were decreased by up to 60%. A simply D3 injection, in addition to a 50,000IU maintenance therapy, contributed the most to achieve sufficient levels of Vitamin D at delivery. 

The conclusion, according to the trial: 

“Prenatal vitamin D screening and treatment program is an effective approach in detecting deficient women, improving 25(OH)D levels and decreasing pregnancy adverse outcomes.”

The purpose for this trial, according to the authors, was to conduct a systematic review, gathering the results of 31 studies that showed insufficient serum levels of Vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D) are associated with gestational diabetes (GDM), pre-eclampsia, small gestational age infants, an increased risk of bacterial vaginosis and low birth weight in infants.  

Michael Holick, Ph.D., M.D., a Professor of Medicine, Physiology and Biophysics, and Director of the Bone Health Care Clinic at Boston University Medical Center, provided a commentary to this study, published by the Endocrine Society.

Doctor Holick pointed out that the study:

“Observed a .25-fold increase in the number of pregnant women who were able to achieve a 25(OH)D thatwas.20 ng/ml when they were screened for their vitamin D status and provided vitamin D supplementation compared with pregnant women who were not screened and therefore were not advised to take a vitamin D supplement. They observed a remarkable decrease in adverse pregnancy outcomes for women who were screened and received vitamin D supplementation. These included some of the most serious adverse complications during pregnancy, including 60%, 50%, and 40% decreases in preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and preterm delivery, respectively.”

Holick also brought attention to the continued controversy regarding what Vitamin D levels are considered optimum when he cited an article based on the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) that recommends:

“All children over 1 year of age and all adults up to 70 years of age require 600 IU of vitamin D daily to maintain a blood level of 25(OH)D of at least 20 ng/ml”

A retrospective study, also cited by Dr. Holick, included 40 mother/infant pairs who were documented to have taken 600 IU of vitamin D a day on average, along with 2.3 glasses of milk daily, which contained 230 IU of vitamin D, throughout their pregnancy. The definition of Vitamin D Deficiency in this study was defined as a plasma 25(OH)D level less than 30 nmol/L (20ng/ml). The study found: 

“50% of the mothers and 65% of the infants had a circulating level of 25(OH)D, of 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L) at the time of birth. When using a circulating level of 25(OH)D, 20 ng/mL as the cutoff, 76% of the mothers and 81% of the newborns were vitamin D deficient.”

The study of Rostami et al. also found

“preterm delivery was not only associated with vitamin D deficiency but that there was an indirect relationship with blood levels of 25(OH)D and increased risks. Women who had blood levels of 25(OH)D ,10 ng/mL and received vitamin D supplementation decreased the risk of preterm delivery by 67%, and those who had levels between 11 and 20 ng/mL had a 30% decline in premature births. These data are consistent with the post hoc analysis by Wagner et al.

They not only demonstrated a 59% decrease in premature delivery in women who had blood levels of 25(OH)D .40 ng/mL compared with women who had blood levels ,20 ng/mL, but they also reported less of a decrease for those women who maintained a blood level of 20 to 40 ng/mL (41% vs 59%) in women with a 25(OH)D .40 ng/mL].

Equally impressive was the observation when taking into account all three adverse outcomes (i.e., preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, and preterm delivery), women who were screened and treated for the vitamin D deficiency decreased the odds of these adverse events by 55%.”

Is “Big Pharma” adding to the denial of a vitamin D deficiency in the US?

In 2018, Medical Kidnap published the story, “The War Against Vitamin D – A Threat to Big Pharma” that included commentary by William B. Grant, Ph.D.  

This commentary, published on, in 2018, pointed out facts about how Vitamin D acceptance is being delayed due to Big Pharma using a “Disinformation Playbook” to slow down the acceptance of the strong support for Vitamin D.  

Dr. Grant calls attention to how:

“In the past two decades, evidence has accrued showing that higher 25(OH)D serum levels from diet, supplements, and/or solar UVB exposure, are associated and mechanistically linked to better health and longer life expectancy.”

According to Dr. Grant:

“Other authors have implied that “Vitamin D” is just another vitamin by designing studies as if it were a true vitamin [Fortmann, 2013], [Misotti, 2013] when, in fact, vitamin D is a hormone precursor provided either in the diet or made in the skin through the action of UVB on 7-dehydrocholesterol, though the definition of vitamin is a substance required for life that is NOT produced in the body.

However, the definition of hormone is a regulatory substance produced in an organism and transported in tissue fluids to stimulate specific cells or tissues into action.”

The 2 decades of research and evidence Doctor Grant referred to earlier, include physicians from several areas of specialty, and he also includes 30 references to studies that all show the benefits of vitamin D.

The medical literature and data consistently show a link between optimum Vitamin D levels and other systems of the body. It is not just pregnant woman and their babies who can, and will, benefit from having the desirable levels of Vitamin D, but everyone.

Not just physicians and scientists backing the benefits of Vitamin D

Even popular websites such as Web MD are publishing information about the benefits of Vitamin D.  

New York Times Magazine criticized WebMD claiming they biased readers toward drugs sold by the sites pharmaceutical sponsors.

But, in an article published on WebMD, May 2010, the author, Salynn Boyles, quotes Ruth Lawrence, MD, University of Rochester professor of pediatrics and chair of the breastfeeding committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics,

“It is clear that both for mothers and their babies, vitamin D levels are low.  This is true in northern areas like Rochester and in sunny climates like Charleston.”


“We have been searching for the causes of preeclampsia and premature birth for many years. It is reassuring that the risk of these complications are lower for women taking extra vitamin D, but it is premature to say it is the cause.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends pediatricians,

“Encourage parents of infants who are either breastfed or consuming less than 1 liter (just under 1 quart, or 33.8 ounces) of infant formula per day to give their infants an oral Vitamin D supplement to meet the current AAP recommendation.”

The AAP came up with this recommendation based on a study published in Pediatrics, April 2010, that concluded: 

“Our findings suggest that most US infants are not consuming adequate amounts of vitamin D according to the 2008 AAP recommendation.”

The US and Canada have been fortifying foods with Vitamin D for years.  

In an article published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2004, which used the US Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994) to show the need for Vitamin D fortified foods, reports of a high prevalence of hypovitaminosis D and its association with chronic disease such as diabetes mellitus, cancer, autoimmune disorders and osteoporosis.

A list of foods fortified with Vitamin D in the US:

  • Cereal flours and related products
  • Farina
  • Ready to eat breakfast cereals
  • Enriched rice
  • Enriched corn meal products
  • Enriched noodle products
  • Enriched macaroni products
  • Milk
  • Fluid milk
  • Acidified milk
  • Cultured milk
  • Concentrated milk
  • Nonfat dry milk fortified with A and D
  • Evaporated milk, fortified
  • Dry whole milk
  • Yogurt
  • Low fat yogurt
  • Nonfat yogurt
  • Margarine
  • Calcium-fortified fruit juices and drinks

The article also found:

“Cross-sectional studies suggested that current US/Canadian fortification practices are not effective in preventing hypovitaminosis D, particularly among vulnerable populations during winter. Cross-sectional studies in the United States and Canada also revealed that meeting the DRI for vitamin D intake is not sufficient to prevent vitamin D insufficiency in the winter in Canada and throughout the year among younger and older African American women in the United States. The strong association between vitamin D insufficiency and risks of chronic diseases has raised concerns regarding the efficacy of current fortification mechanisms, such as milk fortification, in the United States and Canada to prevent low circulating concentrations of vitamin D. Chronic disease risks were linked directly to low vitamin D intake, with significantly greater risks of type 1 diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and hip fractures. Many randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that higher concentrations of vitamin D administered as dietary supplements (∼800–1200 IU/d or 20–30 μg/d) are effective in reducing fracture rates among elderly subjects. We know much less about the efficacy of vitamin D fortification of foods in reducing the risks of osteoporosis and other chronic diseases.”

Still no prenatal screening programs in the US

With the overwhelming prevalence of medical data supporting the positive effects of Vitamin D during pregnancy and decreasing the odds of adverse events associated with pregnancy and delivery, there is still no screening program for Vitamin D on pregnant women.

Dr. Michael Holick considers the results from the Rostami study as,

“Monumental when considering all of the health care ramifications and health care costs associated with the three most serious complications of pregnancy.”

Who is the denialist?

An editorial by Peter Strouse published in the journal to which he is managing editor, Pediatric Radiology, February 2016, claims physicians and citizens are just denialists, denying the very existence of child abuse. Strouse also goes so far as to attack the U.S. Supreme Court.

As with most of the new medical literature and studies discrediting theories such as Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma, CAPs are also discrediting the prevalence of rickets in the US, claiming most, if not all, fractures in infants are due to abuse.

Rickets is being misdiagnosed as abuse by Child Abuse Pediatricians due to their lack of knowledge and relying on x-rays only, and not laboratory tests, confirming a vitamin D deficiency.  


Child Abuse Pediatricians Destroying Families by Diagnosing “Abuse” When Medical Condition is Rickets

So who are the real “denialists”? The physicians who continue to conduct proper, scientific studies to advance medicine, or physicians who continue to believe the same dogma and circular reasoning after the studies and medical literature used for this circular reasoning have been discredited?

A mother accused of child abuse in 2018 by a CAP who claimed her son in no way had a metabolic bone disease or rickets, with a vitamin D level of 12ng/ml at 6 weeks of age and being supplemented with 400IUs/day, but treated the child for rickets according to the AAP’s recommended treatment for rickets, asked her primary care doctor to check her vitamin D level at her annual physical.  

The mother’s vitamin D level at the end of August, after the summer months when vitamin D levels are at their highest, had a vitamin D level of 8ng/ml. Based on research that shows an infant’s vitamin D level is lower than the mother’s at birth, sometimes by 50%, it is clear her son’s vitamin D level at birth would have been far lower than 12ng/ml.  

This mother was me. The CAP never tested my level. She also failed to mention my son’s vitamin D level would have been much lower at birth. The fractures were dated back 3-5 weeks, which would have made them occur before, during, or right after birth.

Can there be change?

How many parents and children could be spared the devastation of a false child abuse accusation if the mother was screened for vitamin D deficiency and supplemented accordingly?

How many individuals would not be suffering with diabetes, osteoporosis, cancer and other autoimmune disorders if they were not only aware they were deficient in vitamin D with proper and routine testing, but also given a recommended daily intake by their physician?

Perhaps Dr. Holick is correct. Vitamin D is a natural substance, easily obtained through sunlight, foods and natural supplementation, therefore a synthetic drug is not needed. But,

“If a pharmaceutical company had developed a drug to reduce risk by even 10% they would have a multibillion dollar business.”


Medical Kidnapping eBook