Andrew Hitchcock interviews Patrick Slattery about the 1997 film American History X


Everything you ever wanted to know about American History X, minus crap about special effects or dramatic performances or any other gay stuff like that.

Also, call the White House at 202-456-1111. Tell them if the president isn’t going to be the Donald Trump that we elected, we will find someone who will be.


Check out Dr. Slattery’s website,

Most immediately, let’s flood the White House switchboard with calls. Here is the number: (202) 456-1111.

There is also an email page. We need to avoid profanity and coarseness, but forcefully state that these hoaxes are aimed at preventing Trump from restoring relations with Russia, which is necessary in order to Make America Great Again.

Source Article from

13 crazy things to know about planet Earth

In celebration of Earth Day: An ode to our awesome orb.

Allow me to roll out a cliché and say that here at TreeHugger, every day is Earth Day. Tips on going green and sustainable design and treehugging in general are business as usual; our modus operandi 24/7. But who would we be to let such a momentous day as April 22 pass without some fanfare? So with that in mind, here’s some praise for the planet, glory for the globe, an all-around high-five highlighting some randomly remarkable features of this wild world we’re so lucky to call home.

1. Earth plays host to deadly, exploding lakes

Why should science fiction and horror movies have all the fun? Earth is pretty dramatic too. We’ve even got exploding lakes. In Cameroon and on the border of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo there are three crater lakes – Nyos, Monoun and Kivu – which sit above volcanic earth. The magma below releases carbon dioxide into the lakes, and the gas can escape to form a limnic eruption, potentially killing everything nearby. Around Kivu Lake, geologists have found evidence of massive biological extinctions about every thousand years.

2. And boiling rivers

Hidden deep in the Peruvian rainforest and overseen by a powerful shaman, the sacred healing site of Mayantuyacu is home to a 4-mile long river that is 82-feet wide and 20 feet deep. And boasts water temperatures that range from 120F degrees to 196F degrees; in some parts it actually boils! Animals who fall in are killed quickly. And while there are hot springs in the Amazon, there is nothing like this river which is known to locals as Shanay-timpishka. (Read more about it here.)

3. The planet is covered in stardust

Every year, 40,000 tons of cosmic dust falls upon our planet. It’s not something we notice, but eventually all that dust, which is made of oxygen, carbon, iron, nickel, and all the other elements, finds its way into our bodies. We are stardust.

4. You can’t keep a good planet still

While we may feel like we’re standing still, of course, we are not. We’re actually spinning wildly and flying through space! It’s a wonder life seems so calm. Depending on where you are, you could be spinning at over 1,000 miles per hour (though those on the North or South poles would be still). Meanwhile, we’re moving around the sun at a zippy 67,000 miles per hour. Whoosh.

5. It has some really cold spots

We’re talking really, really cold. A few hundred miles from the Arctic Circle is the town of Oymyakon, Russia, which in 1933 earned the title as the coldest place on Earth when the temperature dropped to -90F. It is so cold here that people don’t turn their cars off and must heat the ground with a bonfire for days before in order to bury their dead. During the winter, the temperature averages -58F. Who needs mascara when you have crystal eyelashes?

6. And others that are as hot as Hades

On the other end of the mercury, Death Valley plays home to the hottest temperatures recorded: the hottest on the planet being 134F on July 10, 1913. That was not a good week in the desert; temperatures reached 129F or above on five consecutive days. More recently, the summer of 2001 saw 100F for 154 consecutive days, while the summer of 1996 was bestowed with 105 days over 110F and 40 days when the mercury reached 120F.

7. The high highs are really high

At 29,028 feet above sea level, Mount Everest is the highest place on Earth when measured by sea level. But if you measure height based on the distance from the center of the planet, Mount Chimaborazo in the Andes Mountains in Ecuador takes the prize. Although Chimaborazo is about 10,000 feet shorter (relative to sea level) than Everest, this mountain is about 1.5 miles farther into space because of the equatorial bulge.

8. And the low down is deep

The lowest point on Earth is the Mariana Trench in the western Pacific Ocean. It reaches down about 36,200 feet, nearly 7 miles, below sea level.

9. The planet has rocks that scoot themselves

In a remote stretch of Death Valley, a lakebed known as Racetrack Play plays home to one of the natural world’s more compelling mysteries: Rocks that sail across the bed of the lake, propelled by nothing that anyone can see. It’s a puzzle that has long-stumped scientists, and has rarely ever been seen in action, save for the long meandering tracks left behind in the mud surface. One theory holds that the scooting is caused by a succinct combination of rain, wind, ice and sun all playing on concert.

10. And dunes that sing

Around 30 places across the planet have sand dunes that sing and croak, creating low droning music that lands somewhere between chanting monks and a swarm of bees. From the Gobi Desert and Death Valley to the Sahara and Chilean desert, the source of the sounds has long remained a mystery, although there are a number of theories explaining the sonic phenomena, it remains a hotly debated topic.

11. There’s a sweet spot for lightning

Every night in northwestern Venezuela, where the Catatumbo River meets Lake Maracaibo, a thunderstorm occurs. And not just a passing show, but a storm that can last up to 10 hours and averaging 28 lightning strikes per minute. Known as Relámpago del Catatumbo (the Catatumbo Lightning) it can strike as many as 3,600 bolts in an hour. Every night!

12. The world below is a giant, mysterious thing

We think we’re so fancy with our terrestrial lives, but you should see what’s going on down in the coral reefs. It is there in which exists the most species per unit area of any of the planet’s ecosystems, even more than the rainforests. And while the reefs are comprised of tiny individual coral polyps, together they form the largest living structures on Earth, even visible from space.

13. And we don’t know the half of it

While oceans cover around 70 percent of the planet, we’ve only explored some 5 percent of them. In a similar vein, scientists estimate that there are anywhere between 5 million and 100 million species on Earth, but … we have identified only about 2 million of them. We think we know it all, but there is so much left to discover. What a wonderful world!

Source Article from

CNN Panel Gives Their Opinions About Why Opinions on Opinion-Shows Is Bad

In a jaw-dropping display that was one part a lack of self-awareness and another part hypocrisy, Wednesday’s prime-time Anderson Cooper 360 featured a panel of CNN analysts sharing their opinions about opinion shows like Hannity on Fox News. Their opinions varied but were largely against the mixing of opinion and news. And that was their opinion on the news of the day.

The hypocrisy was so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I mean, personally, I have no problem with Fox News. I’m glad Fox News is out there. I’m glad MSNBC is out there. I personally wouldn’t want to do what either of them do,” explained host Anderson Cooper. But his virtue signaling was all talk and no sincerity because his introduction to the segment included a mocking shot from the undersized network:

Hannity’s employer Fox News did what any respectable news organization would do when face the with the knowledge that one of its anchors had gone on the air time after time after time to breathlessly report on someone without disclosing his personal connection to the story. I’m kidding. They don’t care. They didn’t care.

The first opinion about opinions Cooper asked for was from Washington Post national correspondent Philip Bump, who asserted that Sean Hannity was the sole reason Fox News was popular on the right and why Trump was popular. “So this is a network that Republicans are watching a lot. Sean Hannity is dragging all the coverage to the favorable Trump position. And the net result is it certainly contributes to the fact that Donald Trump is seen very favorably by that same base of people,” he opined.



Bump also claimed that Hannity only “insists [his show] isn’t a journalistic show, it’s an opinion show,” as if it was anything but. Also according to his opinion, Hannity was “the furthest right outpost on Fox News” and as such he “drags the rest of the hosts with him to match the rhetoric that he is using there.

There is a conflict for Fox News. Cause obviously, during the day they have folks like Shepherd Smith, Bret Baier who are doing reporting. And yet the nighttime is much more opinion based,” Cooper said…at the exact same time Hannity was on the air.

Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Laura Coates decried how Fox News would dare to differentiate between opinion and news and have people argue to sway others’ opinions via such shows:

Yeah, it’s almost too convenient to say, “oh no, no we’re going to use a kind of nuanced semantics argument. I’m an opinion journalist not actually a journalist. I’m not to be regarded and have the credibility as others but please believe every single word that I say.”

Apparently, it’s more appropriate (or “ethical” to use her words) to not identify a show as opinion and to only refer to all the shows as news.

Former Fox News contributor Kristen Powers stuck up for her former outlet and suggested that most people understood the difference between opinion and news. “I don’t think nobody thinks that Rachel Maddow, however talented she is, is just giving people the straight scoop. It is a perspective,” she argued. “So, I think most people recognize that what Sean is doing is gifting an opinion.

The serious problem with CNN isn’t that they don’t get that their shows are opinion shows; it’s their pernicious disingenuousness to continuously claim that all their shows are straight news no matter the obvious. Their shows might not all have one host just giving their sole opinion like Fox News and MSNBC (as some do), but what they do is farm it out to their liberal analysts who dominate the programs. So, whenever you see or hear a CNN employee say they’re news and not opinion, they’re being misleading.

The relevant portions of the transcript are below, click “expand” to read: 


Sign Up for MRC Newsletters!


CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360
April 18, 2018
9:38:04 PM

ANDERSON COOPER: In the two days that have elapsed since the President’s lawyer Michael Cohen was forced to reveal in court that the mystery client he tried to keep secret was, in fact, Sean Hannity, the consequences have been swift. Hannity’s employer Fox News did what any respectable news organization would do when face the with the knowledge that one of its anchors had gone on the air time after time after time to breathlessly report on someone without disclosing his personal connection to the story.

I’m kidding. They don’t care. They didn’t care. Here is a statement. (…) It’s a dozy of a conflict of interest, one that was kept secret. But it’s not even Hannity’s most glaring conflict of interest. New reporting in The Washington Post shows how intertwined Hannity and the President are.


PHILIP BUMP: Hannity has been an ally of Trump since early in the campaign. Probably even something before the campaign. He essentially endorsed him during the campaign. And he has been able to use his television program which he insists isn’t a journalistic show, it’s an opinion show. But he’s been able to use it to drive the conversation both nationally and at Fox News. He essentially serves as the furthest right-outpost on Fox News and sort of drags the rest of the hosts with him to match the rhetoric that he is using there. (…) So this is a network that Republicans are watching a lot. Sean Hannity is dragging all the coverage to the favorable Trump position. And the net result is it certainly contributes to the fact that Donald Trump is seen very favorably by that same base of people.

COOPER: There is a conflict for Fox News. Cause obviously, during the day they have folks like Shepherd Smith, Bret Baier who are doing reporting. And yet the nighttime is much more opinion based.

LAURA COATES: Yeah, it’s almost too convenient to say, “oh no, no we’re going to use a kind of nuanced semantics argument. I’m an opinion journalist not actually a journalist. I’m not to be regarded and have the credibility as others but please believe every single word that I say.”

And the conflict is so apparent in my mind, that, of course, I’m like an attorney a journalist doesn’t have the same bar admission ethical standards that you would have but you still have credibility and ethics on the line. To me this is a clear violation of what the American people would like from somebody who represents they are actually giving factual information as opposed to not only just opinion but also one tainted by a personal conflict.


COOPER: I mean, personally, I have no problem with Fox News. I’m glad Fox News is out there. I’m glad MSNBC is out there. I personally wouldn’t want to do what either of them do.


KRISTEN POWERS: Yeah, I mean, look where I would say the evening news shows at Fox, like the evening news shows at MSNBC are opinion shows. They’re not — anybody who think they’re turning on the news getting Walter Cronkite, they’re not. And I don’t think nobody thinks that Rachel Maddow, however talented she is, is just giving people the straight scoop. It is a perspective. So, I think most people recognize that what Sean is doing is gifting an opinion. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with him being a supporter of Donald Trump. I do think he should have disclosed this.


Source Article from

20 Pictures That Speak 1000 Words About Our Current Society

Next Story

Sometimes a picture can so perfectly get a point across, and every so often artists use this form of conveying a message to highlight some of the aspects of our society or our way of being to share a powerful message.

The following images speak 1000 words, but they also may invoke something deep within you. Sometimes a picture can put something into a completely different perspective and potentially make you see something that you didn’t already know. Pay attention to the following images and how they make you feel.

Do you agree with what they are portraying? Have you felt this way in your own life? What emotions get stirred up inside of you?

1. The Deceptive Leader’s True Colors Come Out Only After Election

2. Doing The Right Thing Only When Someone Is Watching

3. Knowledge Is More Powerful Than Money

4. Not Everyone Wants To Or Fits Into The Current System

5. It’s All Perspective

6. Ignorance Is Bliss

7. United We Stand, Divided We Fall

8. Some Sit On The Top While The Others Do All Of The Work

9. What Do You Do With The Time You Have Left?

10. Focus On Your Own Goals And Keep Digging

11. We Work So Hard For It To, What? Take It To The Grave?

12. People Will Try And Police Your Happiness

13. Feed Your Brain

14. Fighting For Peace?

15. Let Them Soar

16. Think More, Talk Less


17. Will Books Become Obsolete?  18. A Little Teamwork Goes A Long Way

19. Have We Forgotten What Gives Us Life?

20. What We Do Today Will Affect The Future Generations

Much Love

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

Comey Questions Colbert About ‘Pee Tape’ Hotel Room in Moscow

CBS’s The Late Show
April 17, 2018
11:52:18 PM Eastern

STEPHEN COLBERT: Sir, thanks for being here.

JAMES COMEY: It’s great to be here. Thanks for having me.

COLBERT: Before we get started, you’ve done a lot of interviews. I do a lot of interviews. I just want you to know, I need loyalty. ( Laughter ) I expect loyalty. Can you give me that?

COMEY: Eat your shrimp scampi.

COLBERT: Was that over dinner?

COMEY: Yes, it was over dinner.

COLBERT: All right. Well, all I ask from you is honesty tonight. I know that when you were fired, you say in the book, when it was over, you flew back on a plane to the east coast, drinking pinot noir out of a paper cup, so I thought maybe we could recreate that happy moment for you right now. ( Cheers and applause ) There you go. To the truth.

COMEY: Yes, to the truth.


COLBERT: You can see– you’re a prosecutor. You’re not just telling a story. You’re laying out a case for your actions regarding Hillary Clinton and her investigation, and your run-ins with Donald Trump. It’s a– it’s an indictment of Donald Trump in describing what an ethical leader is. Do you think that he has – I know you don’t like the man, but do you think he has an opportunity still to be an ethical leader? Can he turn his presidency around if your eyes?

COMEY: I think it would be very hard given the way he is as a person. He doesn’t seem to be somebody who has external reference points his life. Ethical leaders make hardest decisions by looking to some reference points.


COLBERT: Describe him as being– or the people around him, as having a mob, or a Cosa Nostra quality. What is it about him and the people around him that feels like the mob, which you prosecuted, to you?


COLBERT: If you felt like you were working for a mob boss, were you surprised that you got whacked? ( Laughter ) Because that’s what they do.

COMEY: I actually was quite surprised because I thought I’m leading the Russia investigation. Even though our relationship was becoming strained, there’s no way I’m going to get fired or whacked.


COLBERT: The president has said some kind of fun things about you. He has called you in the last few days, he has called you “Slippery Jim.” And he has called you a “Slimeball.” Anything to say back?

COMEY: No. He’s tweeted at me probably 50 times. I’ve been gone for a year. I’m like a breakup he can’t get over. He wakes up in the morning– ( cheers and applause ) I’m out there– I’m out there living my best life. He wakes up in the morning and tweets at me.


COLBERT: Well, you– he’s not the only one who has called you names. Chris Wallace, talking about your book, called you “Bitchy” because he was surprised about the– you were talking about President Trump’s hair and his hand size and the fact that he looks so, sort of Orange, when you see him. Why did you include that?

COMEY: Because I’m trying to be an author. ( Laughter ) And I’m sitting there typing, and I can hear my editor saying, “Bring the reader with you. Show the reader that room.”


COLBERT: Are you surprised how much attention just that part of it has gotten? Because I want to point out to everybody out there– People I know and respect or are interested in book have said, “I don’t know, it seems a little tawdry, the hair and the hands.” It is one paragraph on page 217 into 218. It’s probably six sentences. Okay. [Rips pages out] Now it’s out of the book. There’s another 160 pages in here that are pretty good and pretty gripping. Why do you think people are focusing just on that?

COMEY: Because they haven’t read the book, and they’re looking to criticize the book and me, and so they’re looking for a handhold. And that was an easy handhold. To my mind it’s a silly handhold, but it’s something people grab on to and they can on of go on TV and talk about and haven’t done what you have done, which is actually reading it.


12:20:11 AM Eastern

COLBERT: Let’s keep on going. Because, look, I want to be delicate here, but he looks like a microwave circus peanut that someone rubbed on a golden retriever. By the way, I went to that room– just so you know, the people out there know– I went to that room. I stayed at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow. We rented that room. Which is really all you need to do. Now, you’re an investigator, did anyone from your office ever go to that hotel and look at that room?

COMEY: Not while I was director.

COLBERT: I don’t know if anyone from the press—You’re an investigator, would you like to ask me anything of the room? Ask me anything about that room.

COMEY: Is it big enough for the– a germophobe to be at a safe distance from the activity?

COLBERT: The bedroom is very long, very long. You could definitely be out of at what we call at Sea World, “the splash zone.” Okay?


Source Article from

10 extraordinary facts about elephant trunks

Amazing secrets of the excellent elephant trunk revealed!

We may take the trunk of an elephant for granted, so accustomed are we to seeing these iconic animals with their long agile noses arching with a spray of water. But when you stop to consider this oddest of dangling appendages, one quickly remembers what a curious animal part it is. Imagine having, essentially, a supernaturally strong skin-covered slinky attached to your face … one that can caress, has fine motor skills, and is so sensitive it can feel distant thunder from vibrations in the ground.

Among the trunk’s many exceptional features, consider these wonders.

It is many body parts in one

The trunk is both an upper lip and a nose, with two nostrils running through the whole thing. At the trunk’s tip, African elephant have two fingers while Asian elephants have one. The dexterity of the fingers allows an elephant the ability to do things like deftly pick up a single blade of grass or hold a paintbrush.

It has mighty muscles

An elephant’s trunk has eight major muscles on either side and 150,000 muscle bundles in all. It is so strong that it can push down trees and lift a whopping 700,000 pounds.

Its got the moves

Like the human tongue, the trunk is a muscular hydrostat – a boneless muscular structure that allows for its excellent maneuverability.

It has reach

Imagine how awkward it would be for an elephant to squat down for its mouth to reach water, or how long its neck would have to be to reach leaves? The trunk takes care of all of this – and in fact can reach branches 20 feet high. Think of the selfies it could take, no selfie stick required.

It has a built-in snorkel

That great reach makes the elephant unique in another category as well – it is the only animals that can effectively snorkel on its own. By extending the trunk out of the water, elephants can cross bodies of water that would prove too deep for other less-equipped animals.

It possesses a phenomenal sense of smell

The upper nasal cavities have chemical and olfactory sensors in the form of millions of receptor cells. So sensitive is an elephant’s trunk that is more capable than a bloodhound’s nose and is said to be able to smell water from several miles away.

It feels the vibes

Aside from smell, the trunk is sensitive to vibrations; from the ground it can sense the rumble of faraway herds and even far-off thunder.

It’s a dynamo of hydro engineering

The trunk may be most famous for its display of spray as it sucks up water to drink and splash. But just how effective of a water tool is it? It can suck up to 10 gallons of water a minute and can hold up to two gallons of water at a time! (And for the record, the elephant doesn’t drink directly through the trunk, yet uses it so bring water to its mouth.)

It says a lot

Not only is the trunk used for breathing (and smelling and drinking and feeding) it is also used for social purposes like greetings and caresses. From National Geographic:

The relationship between a mother elephant and her offspring is a protective, reassuring, and comforting one. Mothers and other family members caress the young in many different ways, by wrapping a trunk over the calf’s back leg… Mothers also wrap their trunks around the calf’s belly, over its shoulder, and under its neck, often touching its mouth. A gentle rumbling sound often accompanies the caress gesture.

It’s a comfort item

Joyce Poole has been studying elephants for nearly 4 decades – and is co-founder of Elephant Voices. She explains to National Geographic that when an elephant feels uneasy, or is ambivalent about what to do next, he or she may use the trunk in a “touch-face” gesture, a “self-directed touching of the face, mouth, ear, trunk, tusk, or temporal gland, apparently to reassure and self-soothe.” Apparently, elephants pet themselves with their trunks to makes themselves feel better.

In conclusion, a video of a baby elephant learning to use her trunk. Because, “baby elephant learning to use her trunk.”

This updated article was originally published in 2016.

Source Article from

Pentagon Lies About Overnight Aggression on Syria

Pentagon Lies About Overnight Aggression on Syria

by Stephen Lendman

At a Saturday briefing to reporters, “Mad Dog” Mattis, Joint Chiefs chairman “Fighting Joe” Dunford, France’s General Montague, and UK air vice marshal Parker tried justifying unjustifiable overnight aggression on Syria.

Their justification for what happened turned truth on its head. US Defense Department officials claimed overnight terror-bombing took the “heart” out of a Syrian chemical weapons program that doesn’t exist.

No evidence proves otherwise. Plenty shows Syria’s entire CW stockpile was eliminated in 2014. Nothing suggests any remain. Clearly these weapons never were used by Syrian forces against their own people or anyone else.

Mattis distorted reality, claiming Assad “us(ed) chemical weapons to murder women, children and other innocents” – a bald-faced lie.

He lied saying Trump was constitutionally authorized “to use military force overseas to defend important United States national interests.” 

“The United States has vital national interests in averting a worsening catastrophe in Syria, and specifically deterring the use and proliferation of chemical weapons.”

Security Council members alone may authorize an attack by nations against others – only permitted in self-defense, never preemptively.

America has no national security interests in Syria, a nation threatening no others. The catastrophe in the country was made in the USA, supported by allied rogue states.

US-supported terrorists alone used CWs numerous times throughout years of war. No evidence suggests government forces ever used them.

Mattis: “Earlier today, President Trump directed the US military to conduct operations in consonance with our allies to destroy (Syria’s) chemical weapons research development and production capability.”

No such capability exists. US-led aggression had nothing to do with alleged use of CWs in Syria, everything to do with trying to advance Washington’s imperium, along with punishing Syria and Russia for foiling US aims in the country.

Mattis: “Tonight, France, the United Kingdom and the United States took decisive action to strike the Syrian chemical weapons infrastructure.”

A Big Lie!

Mattis: “The strike tonight separately demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used on anyone under any circumstances in contravention of international law.”

Washington, its rogue allies and terrorist foot soldiers alone flagrantly continue violating international law, not Syria, Russia, Iran or Hezbollah – defending the Syrian Arab Republic against US-led naked aggression.

Dunford, Montague and Parker followed Mattis, explaining targets struck, Dunford saying:

“This evening we conducted strikes with two allies on multiple sites that will result in a long-term degradation of Syria’s capability to research, develop and employ chemical and biological weapons.” 

No such capabilities existed to be destroyed. The strike wasn’t “a strong message (about) inexcusable…actions” by Syria.

It was naked aggression, the highest of high crimes, escalating years of US-led imperial war on a sovereign state.

The overnight attack followed years of raping and destroying Syria, massacring its people, likely worse coming – endless US-led aggression raging with no end of it in sight.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Source Article from

Vitamin D is so important researchers worry about ethics of limiting supplementation to perform research trials

Image: Vitamin D is so important researchers worry about ethics of limiting supplementation to perform research trials

(Natural News)
In case you needed any more proof of how essential vitamin D is to good health, researchers have warned that placebo-controlled trials that involve limiting some people’s intake of the all-star nutrient could be considered unethical.

This presents a serious quandary for researchers. Demonstrating the efficacy of vitamin D in studies is essential for boosting awareness and acceptance of its treatment effects, but the very design of many studies could cause some patients to miss out on the vitamins they need.

Writing in the journal Nutrients, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Integrative Medicine Program Director Dr. Leigh Frame outlined just what could happen if a person known to be deficient in vitamin D was denied it. The potential problems include poor short-term or long-term bone health and a higher risk of chronic disease, cancer, autoimmunity, infection and mental illness.

The researchers involved in the review cited two types of trial design as having potentially conflicting objectives. The first is studies with an active control arm with no placebo group. In this case, they point out that the benefit of such a study could be dampened if the absence of a placebo causes them to get non-significant results. Having an active control could limit the possibility of detecting meaningful effects from the supplement.

In the case of placebo trials, valuable information is often gleaned but the ethical questions could be a deal-breaker. Because vitamin D deficiency is a “known harm” and vitamin D has known benefits, they believe that withholding adequate supplementation from some people in the study could cause them an undue health risk. They believe the potential benefits that can be gained by determining an ideal dose of vitamin D would not necessarily outweigh the harm that could be caused to those who are deprived of supplementation.

They’ve identified two possible solutions to these problems. First, they suggest designing trials that have placebo groups but without supplement restrictions. For example, a study called the Vitamin D and Omega 3 Trial allowed participants to take up to 400 IU per day, which is the recommended daily allowance. The researchers in that study then monitored the vitamin D levels of people in both groups; the control group was effective despite having slightly higher background levels of vitamin D.

Another solution they put forth entails having a placebo group but then giving them a rescue repletion program at the close of the study. Those in the placebo group might have a vitamin D deficiency during the study, but they’d be given doses afterward that could reduce their risk of harm. They say this would not only protect the methodology but would also stay in line with the ethical placebo group guidelines set out by the 2001 Declaration of Helsinki.

Vitamin D’s list of benefits continues to grow

Vitamin D continues to be the subject of trials and studies as more and more information comes to light regarding what a powerful tool it is for optimum health. For example, one recent study found that vitamin D has the potential to cut a person’s risk of cancer by 20 percent or even more.

In addition, it plays a vital role in bone health, helping your body absorb much-needed minerals like phosphorus and calcium and reducing your risk of fractures. It also helps reduce your risk of both types of diabetes, and those with sufficient vitamin D intake also have a lower risk of heart disease.

Daily exposure to natural sunlight without sunscreen is the best way to boost your vitamin D levels, but supplementation is a good route when this isn’t possible. Follow more news on Vitamin D at

Sources for this article include:



Source Article from