• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

New Scientist - Murder trial highlights return of Dickensian killer


Senior Member

Home|Health| News

Murder trial highlights return of Dickensian killer
05 January 2012 by Andy Coghlan
Magazine issue 2846. Subscribe and save

Lack of vitamin D is being linked to rickets, MS and asthma, so it's time to confront the Victorian villain once again

Editorial: "Down with this Dickensian disease"

LAST month, Rohan Wray and Chana Al-Alas walked free from the Old Bailey court in London after being cleared of killing their 4-month-old son Jayden in 2009. The injuries to his skull, knee, elbow, shoulder, hip, ankle and wrist - and haemorrhages in his skull and eyes - had seemed to suggest that the pair was responsible for their baby's death.

Post-mortems revealed a different story. Jayden had rickets, a Dickensian disease caused by a shortage of vitamin D, making his bones abnormally weak and vulnerable to damage.

Further investigations showed that Jayden's mother was also suffering from a lack of vitamin D. She had been unable to supply Jayden with enough of the vitamin, either before his birth or afterwards in her breast milk.

The case has highlighted a resurgence in rich countries of the potentially fatal diseases that result from a lack of vitamin D (see "Rickets is just the start"). Irene Scheimberg, the clinical pathologist at the Royal London Hospital who discovered Jayden's rickets, says there is evidence to suggest vitamin D deficiency was to blame for the deaths of two other babies she had examined, and may have contributed to the deaths of the 27 infants she has autopsied in the last few years, including deaths attributed to asthma, viruses and sudden infant death syndrome.

In the UK, cases of childhood rickets have leapt from 147 in 1997 to 762 in 2010. The story may be similar in the US: a study published by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, found that only 5 to 13 per cent of breastfed infants and 20 to 37 per cent of formula-fed babies got enough vitamin D to meet the recommended daily dose of 400 international units (IUs) - or 10 micrograms (Pediatrics, DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-2571). The American Academy of Pediatrics came up with this figure in 2009 and it was endorsed in 2010 by the US Institute of Medicine.

There is no national surveillance of rickets in the US. "However, hospitalised cases of rickets among infants, indicating severe vitamin D deficiency, do continue to be reported," says Cria Perrine, lead author of the CDC study.

So why the deficiencies? The body makes its own vitamin D in skin, but only if the skin is exposed to sunlight - something which tends to be discouraged because it raises the risk of skin cancer. Rickets flourished during Britain's industrial revolution, when smog blocked sunlight and children were forced to work all day in factories.

Up to a quarter of the body's vitamin D needs are provided by our diet. It is abundant in oily fish and eggs, but modern diets may not include enough of these foods to provide sufficient vitamin D. Supplements can boost levels of the vitamin, but the few studies available in the US suggest physicians seldom recommend vitamin D supplements for infants, says Perrine.

Gillian Killiner of the British Dietetic Association says the importance of vitamin D has been overlooked in the past decade because of the disproportionate focus on folic acid supplements, which can help prevent spinal defects in infants if given to pregnant women.

There is even uncertainty over the appropriate dose of vitamin D to give to pregnant or breastfeeding women. A recent study of 350 women who were between 12 and 16 weeks into pregnancy explored whether daily doses of 400, 2000 or 4000 IUs of vitamin D should be given. The women were tracked through to delivery. The results suggest that the highest dose was required to sustain normal metabolism in the women, and no adverse effects were found (Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.463).

London-based coroner Andrew Walker recently concluded that vitamin D deficiency had claimed another infant by causing heart-valve failure and impairing immunity to an infection. On 6 December, he wrote to the UK's health minister urging him to ensure that supplemental vitamin D is offered to all woman who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

In response, the Department of Health has promised to review the evidence on vitamin D requirements, and repeated a pledge from 1991 to provide vitamin D to pregnant women.

Boosting awareness is important: disease from vitamin D deficiency is preventable.

Rickets is Just the Start

Low levels of vitamin D through pregnancy and early childhood might increase the risk of food allergies, asthma and even multiple sclerosis.

George Ebers at the University of Oxford, and colleagues, discovered that MS is more common in those born in the northern hemisphere in May - following winter - than those born in November. The incidence of MS also increases further from the equator. Both results hint that lack of exposure to UVB light and subsequent low levels of vitamin D could be linked to a higher risk of the disease.

Ebers has called on the Scottish government to fortify essential foods with vitamin D. "Scotland has two new cases of MS a day and a lifetime cost per case of 1.2 million a year," he says. "It also has the lowest vitamin D levels in the world."

Lack of vitamin D has also been linked to food allergies. Carlos Camargo at Harvard University says that vitamin D deficiency in critical periods of development may increase intestine permeability, meaning the immune system is interacts with genes at over 2776 sites on the human genome, including those linked to asthma and diabetes. "It's got to be an awful lot more important than people give it credit for," says Ebers.


Senior Member
Doing some outdoor exercise 5x/week gets you vit D, flexibility, clears arteries, staves off winter SAD, etc etc etc. Beyond that, the form of vitamin D you get from sunlight is not the same as what you get in a pill. The tablet form <should> work, but I predict that at some point it'll be discovered that moderate sun and a bit of fish work better. People were not designed to live indoors.

It's not practical for most of us now, but for the other 99% outdoor exercise better than a shovel load of vitamins.
Doing some outdoor exercise 5x/week gets you vit D, flexibility, clears arteries, staves off winter SAD, etc etc etc.

Unless you live near the equator, you can't generate vitamin D in response to sunlight in the winter. That requires UVB rays, which are only available at my latitude (near Amsterdam) for 4 months, from April 23 until August 20. The angle of the sun on the first and last few days is only capably of providing UVB between 12:20pm and 1pm, though that slowly extends to between 10:20am and 3pm from approximately June 10 until July 5.

Theoretically, people may be capable of storing enough vitamin D to make it through the other 8 months of the year, but I wouldn't count on it in our case. I felt better over the summer when I spent a lot of time lounging in the sun, and started feeling crappy again in the fall. I began taking a high dose D vitamin (2500 iu) several days ago, and have felt some mild improvements that might be attributable to the supplement.

I also disagree with your estimation that 99% of us can handle outdoor exercise, especially if specifically talking about forum members. My own limit is about 5 minutes in the garden, unless I'm sitting (not kneeling) on the ground, and that results in pain and exhaustion. Laying or sitting down outside in a lounge chair is just as effective for getting vitamin D as "exercise", if not more so since it's easier to expose more of the body to sunlight when sitting or laying down.


Senior Member
this story doesnt suprise me at all . The weather in the UK can be so bizarre , we havent had a decent summer in years . Also there have been major campaigns on skin cancer both in the press and on tv and i think theyve scared half the population to death thinking if theyre unprotected from the sun theyre going to develop skin cancer in later life . What they fail to realise is that we all actually need some exposure to the sun in order to get vit D . I know folk who smother their kids with almost total sunblock instead of just using a high factor suncream .

It does make you wonder also how many other parents have been accused of hurting their kids when infact there is an underlying medical problem responsible which has been missed . very sad