VDC test kit slider

The difference between two “normals”

Posted on: March 16, 2012   by  John Cannell, MD


In a paper the press ignored, well-respected researchers from three different hospitals on the east coast recently reported on high blood calcium levels in three infants and toddlers with rickets who were given vitamin D. The reasons for the high blood calcium, all of which were trivial, were not clear from the paper at first, at least to me.

Vanstone MB, Oberfield SE, Shader L, Ardeshirpour L, Carpenter TO. Hypercalcemia in Children Receiving Pharmacologic Doses of Vitamin D. Pediatrics. 2012 Mar 12.

Before we talk about this recent paper, it is important to remember that (in a paper you are free to download and read in its entirety) the entire country of East Germany had a lot of experience with “pharmacological” (very high) doses of vitamin D in children. Unbelievably, for several decades, every child in East Germany went to the doctor every 3 months where the child received 600,000 IU of vitamin D. All the kids in the entire country got it every three months until the child was 18 months old. That means in the first year and a half of life, every child in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) had a total dose of 3.6 million units of vitamin D.

Markestad T, Hesse V, Siebenhuner M, Jahreis G, Aksnes L, Plenert W, Aarskog D. Intermittent high-dose vitamin D prophylaxis during infancy: effect on vitamin D metabolites, calcium, and phosphorus. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Oct;46(4):652-8

That is way too much as the paper above documents but the amazing thing is that only about 1/3 of the children got high blood calcium and none got clinically toxic. In fact, the authors reported, “All the infants appeared healthy . . .” However, they were not all healthy; some had calcium levels as high as 13 mg/dl, too high but far from fatal. The key, and this is critical, is that the range of calcium considered normal in East Germany was 9.4 to 11.2 mg/dl and these were ranges borrowed from Norway. In the USA, “normal” ranges are 9 to 10.5 mg/dl.

How do we get these calcium ranges? We take several thousand vitamin D deficient children, measure their calcium and use a Gaussian distribution to calculate “normal.” How do I know the kids are vitamin D deficient? Because virtually all the kids in the USA are vitamin D deficient, thanks to video games, the sunscare, and sunblock. For the first time in human history, we are raising a generation of indoor children. Because calcium and vitamin D are connected, such children will have slightly lower calcium levels than would several thousand truly “normal” kids. Therefore, we use the abnormal to calculate the normal.

Next comes my second reading of the recent “toxicity” paper. All three children had rickets but their “hypercalcemia” was all below 11.2 mg/dl. That’s right, none of the children had high blood calcium. They had a calcium level that reflected the fact that someone detected their rickets (rather rare) and gave them the correct amount of vitamin D (total doses of around 150,000 IU), hardly the “pharmacological” doses the authors reported. If they want pharmacological doses, they should take a time train back to East Germany. Pity our children, now, because of these three case reports, children desperately in need of vitamin D will not get it, not because of a conspiracy, but due to the failure to know the difference between normal and normal.

5 Responses to The difference between two “normals”

  1. [email protected]

    I seem to recall that in the US, for ANIMALS (other than us), medical/veternary standards determine OPTIMAL and use that when comparing observed values in a patient to determine treatment. Why is it that we don’t have an OPTIMAL specification for humans in laboratory observations? As you have observed, when “observed averages” are used instead, it is easy to come to the wrong conclusions, and when the population from which the samples are drawn is pathelogical, monsterous mistakes can be made! And, as with Vitamin D, they are.

  2. [email protected]

    About S-Ca, I looked up the swedish references; infants 17 years
    2.15-2.50 mmol/L.

    When I read the article about a study of “PREGNANT SCOTS women are “breathtakingly” deficient in vitamin D” … and after some reading … But the government funded study has not been made public … Professor Ebers said: “I have to say I was shocked. The levels of vitamin D among pregnant women were breathtakingly low.” … Professor Paul Haggarty who led the study in the Rowett Institute Aberdeen, has refused to discuss the study while under review. …

    And it seems that their only concern is the Calcium? How can they do this? What is wrong? It is difficult to interpret in other ways, than they do not want to give vitamin D!


  3. [email protected]

    The swedish references
    S-Ca; infants 17 years 2.15-2.50 mmol/L

  4. [email protected]

    Vitamin D2 not D3 was used in Germany

  5. [email protected]

    Read the article
    Summary: Four reasons why this is a poor example for high dose vitamin D
    1) Totally missed taking the co-factors – and probably had too much Calcium
    2) 4 Months is too long, every for D3, and vitamin D2 has an every shorter half-life
    – The body gets very unbalanced with the wild fluctuations in Vitamin D levels
    3) Vitamin D2 is not nearly as good as Vitamin D3
    4) Far too large of a dose – even if considered as a daily average

    Details at:

Test Your Vitamin D Levels at Home!

Our in-home vitamin D test kit is easy, affordable, and an accurate way to find out your Vitamin D status.

order NOW

We need your help!

We're spreading awareness on Vitamin D Deficiency
Donate NOW
Latest Articles
What is the relationship between vitamin D and childhood UTIs?

A new study suggests vitamin D may protect against UTIs among children by upregulating their own naturally occurring antimicrobial peptides.

Weekly Newsletter

Our Sponsors

December 21st is DDAY. Click here to celebrate the day with us!