The "Vitamin D Cured Rickets" RABBIT HOLE: The Great Rigging

Read the evidence and decide for yourself: did this lab-made chemical concoction REALLY "cure rickets"? Or was it all smoke and mirrors? (Untold true history based on authentic government documents)

WHAT EXACTLY IS RICKETS?

Per Wikipedia, Rickets is “a condition that results in weak or soft bones in children and may have either dietary deficiency or genetic causes… Symptoms include bowed legs, stunted growth, bone pain, large forehead, and trouble sleeping. Complications may include bone deformities, bone pseudofractures and fractures, muscle spasms, or an abnormally curved spine.” Wikipedia goes on to say rickets is caused by eating a diet without enough vitamin D, dark skin, too little sun exposure, exclusive breastfeeding without vitamin D supplementation, celiac disease, and certain genetic conditions.” This condition primarily impacts young children. As you can see, it is currently believed by the medical-science industry that breast milk is no longer a sufficient diet for infants. It is further believed the only way a mother can make her lousy breast milk good enough is by consuming synthetic (lab-made) vitamin D supplements.

If you look up this condition on the internet, you’ll find lots of horrifying photos.

What Wikipedia doesn’t dive into is that all of the symptoms associated with rickets can be caused by a range of drug interactions, alcohol or drug use during pregnancy, chemical exposure, and more.

While history would like us to believe rickets has been around since the beginning of time (until the government came along and stopped it), that simply isn’t true. In 1650, Francis Glisson, a physician at Caius College, Cambridge, stated the disease first appeared about 30 years prior in the counties of Dorset and Somerset (England). Around the same time, in the Netherlands, Daniel Whistler published the first printed book on rickets. Simultaneously, a thesis was published calling rickets a “peculiar and domestic scourge” to English infants. This paper blamed Britain’s gloomy skies and dark winters. I find this to be particularly interesting because one would assume the winter skies in Britain hadn’t changed between all of history and the mid-1600s, so why did some children suddenly begin developing a bone condition due to them? “The lack of sunlight!”, they said - but again, was the sunlight present during winter previously? Could there be an alternative explanation?

---

Wanna listen to this article instead of read? Here you go:

---

I would come to discover that, during the 1600s, Britain underwent significant dietary changes. Although traditional stews were still being made from vegetables, grains, and sometimes meat, a newer diet became mainstream. This meant citizens were now regularly consuming roasted meats, a large variety of breads, pies, and puddings. People enjoyed bread so much that it became a staple food. Additionally, coffee houses began to open all over.

As importing food continued, come the 1800s, processed, nutrientless white rice and processed, nutrientless white flour bread became popular, as did the medical condition “Beri-beri,” which has been conclusively proven to be caused by excessive consumption of these nutrientless, processed, and preserved foods. And remember, while all of this was going on, medical “cures” consisted of alcohol (usually whiskey), mercury, enemas, leeches, trepanning (a horrific, evil procedure), cocaine, opium, and more. So, not only had the diet completely changed, people were also being poisoned under the guise of cures - but that wasn’t the only way they were ingesting hazardous chemicals…

As I laid out in my piece The Great Poisoning & the Virus Scapegoat, “by the early 1800s, the practice of [food] adulteration had become so common, nineteenth-century people developed a taste for fraudulent substances in their food and drink and often did not realize anything was wrong with what they were ingesting until it was too late.” Cheese and sweets were loaded with lead, vegetables were contaminated with high levels of copper, custards made from poisonous leaves, milk was contaminated with formaldehyde, lead, benzoate, and dyes to tinker with its appearance and creaminess, black pepper cut with gravel, oils mixed with turpentine, ground coffee was floor sweepings, and so much more. People were, quite literally, being poisoned, and this was exactly when historic viruses and diseases were appearing - viruses and diseases, such as influenza, which bear the identical symptoms to poisoning.

Come 1857, John Snow suggested rickets in Britain was being caused by the adulteration of bakers' bread with alum, an aluminum compound which 1.5 ounces were being added to a single loaf of bread.

A SOLUTION MUST BE FOUND

By the years of WWI, hundreds of years worth of studies had proven the key to health is diet, but science needed there to be a solution - a solution other than eating proper, nutritious foods and avoiding poisons. Sir Edward Mellanby, a Fellow of the Royal Society and professor of pharmacology at the University of Sheffield, was recruited to conduct studies for the Medical Research Council. Sir Mellanby found that consuming excessive carbohydrates (bread) and excessive fats produced rickets in laboratory animals, as did improper diets. Bone changes occurred when lions were fed processed milk with seed oils. Puppy’s bones rapidly developed rickets when placed on a diet heavy on bread.

His studies claimed if cod liver oil, suet, or meat in large quantities was given to the puppies, they would not develop rickets. I have no way to verify if this was true, but that’s what he claimed; all that was missing from a dog’s diet of bread was some cod liver oil - with this single substance, taken from a fish who lives 600 meters deep, the dog would be in pristine health (sounds pretty damn sketchy if you ask me, but I can’t disprove it.)

While this was going on, on June 19, 1922, the Times reported that a team led by Dr. E. V. McCollum, “the famous biochemist,” had “ ‘captured’ a hitherto unknown vitamin, which has been labeled vitamin D, the specific purpose of which is the protection of bone growth and the prevention of the disease known as rickets.”. History then documented this as the first isolation of vitamin D, but ChatGPT disagrees, stating McCollum never isolated anything.

Next thing you know, synthetic vitamin D was bottled and was pushed hard in America despite no rickets outbreak.

The papers claimed barely any foods contained this vitamin, so you have to make sure you are getting it from select sources.

Come 1940, Britain claimed to be dealing with a post-WWII outbreak of rickets. What history forgets to mention is that this issue impacted low-income citizens who were in the welfare system and receiving government food (more on this in a moment). The solution was to give welfare recipients cod liver oil, after all, it was claimed to cure the puppies. Now here’s where things start to get weird…

SUNSHINE IS NOT A SUPPLEMENT FOR SUPPLEMENTS

Now that synthetic vitamin D was available, the entire medical-science industry was positive this was what welfare diets were lacking and was therefore the cause of rickets. No other cause was considered, as they were 100% sure they had located the culprit; they just needed to prove it.

A six-week investigation was scheduled, January to Feb 1943. No rickets was found - yes, you read that correctly; they could not locate any rickets. With no other explanation, the government said this was because it was a sunnier winter.

To locate the rickets, further investigation was funded in England and Wales (Great Britain, Northern Ireland, England, Scotland). This time around, mass inspections of children would occur, with X-rays being the main source of evidence. The reason for the X-rays was that it was insisted, a child could look perfectly healthy but secretly have the disease. To track down as many cases as possible, observers (doctors) were required to X-ray a minimum of 200 children each. This included children who came to the hospital with “minor ailments”, children in nurseries, just X-ray as many kids as possible. Additionally, questionnaires would be provided regarding how much vitamin D the child was consuming - again, no other factors were to be considered. The X-rays were to be read by three specific doctors who represented the radiological committee. With the abundance of testing, an abundance of rickets was found.

More questionnaires were sent in 1943, this time to be filled in by the pediatrician in charge. The questionnaires covered methods of feeding, and its only real focus was on whether cod liver oil and/or vitamin D was taken. The UK Parliament discussed the outcome of the survey. They stated, through X-rays, they discovered rickets in 4% of children under the age of 18 months, but by visual exams, the figure increased to 12% with some doctors claiming 60% of their infant patients had the disease. This meant an X-ray could show perfectly healthy bones, but the examiner’s eyes knew better. The only problem was, when the same group of children was examined by different clinical observers and radiologists, the findings “differed widely” - not all agreed, in fact, they disagreed so much that the best figure Parliament was comfortable using was 2.5%, and even that was disputed. Regardless of whether the amount was under 1% or as much as 60%, it had become clear to the government, the one and only solution was synthetic vitamin D - infants need far more, and this condition will be eradicated.

One member of Parliament, Colonel Stoddart-Scott, questioned this determination, saying it had been indicated “that the cause of this disease is one of food deficiency”. He went on to say, “Is it not true the Sheffield school discovery was that it was not only a deficiency of food but also a deficiency of sunlight? You could give a child all the vitamins and all the foodstuffs… but at the same time it would be possible to have rickets unless the child had either sunlight or artificial sunlight.” Dr. Stephen Taylor replied, “Sunshine is an alternative for Vitamin D and not a supplement to Vitamin D…”, and just like that, heavy fortification began.

Marching ahead, in January of 1944, whole cream dried milk and baby formula issued by the Ministry of Food had synthetic vitamin D added to it. Assorted “vitamins” were also added to other foods, and while this was occurring, a big push for people to purchase and consume supplements was already underway (this is the same time the “protein powder” scam came to fruition, thanks to Dr. Paul Bragg, who you know as the apple cider vinegar guy.)

HYPERCALCEMIA

Hypercalcemia is defined as a blood calcium level above 2.6 mmol/L (10.7 mg/dL). Cases are typically slow to develop and will present few or no symptoms at first. When symptoms do occur, they can vary significantly in severity and duration. Common symptoms include gastrointestinal issues such as nausea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain, and loss of appetite. As the kidneys continue to work overtime to try to flush out the excess calcium, a person can feel dehydrated and thirsty or have to urinate often. Eventually, people will likely experience muscle weakness, pain, cramping, twitching, and reduced muscle tone. This can be accompanied by fatigue, confusion, difficulty concentrating, depression, irritability, anxiety, and, in severe cases, delirium, hallucinations, stupor, or coma. Next, bone pain and an increased risk of fractures and breaks become common, with young people like myself, Medicine Girl ‘s son, and more readers than I can count suffering serious injuries from minor falls or stumbles. There are even more side effects than I care to invest time in listing here. What causes hypercalcemia? Synthetic vitamin D and other chemical compounds (medications, food additives). Where does the excess calcium come from? Our bones! (I have a ton of content on the topic. Links at bottom of page).

It turned out that, within a decade of the British government mandating the synthetic vitamin be added to products, an outbreak of hypercalcemia occurred. The government wasn’t sure what caused this outbreak, but just to appease the public, they lowered the mandatory dosage of the “vitamin”.

BUT WAS RICKETS CURED?

Yeah, a ton of children were harmed by hypercalcemia, but was it for the greater good? Did rickets disappear?

After the vitamin was added to the food supply, the mass testing stopped. The government no longer ordered doctors to X-ray children by the hundreds or hunt for rickets, so without the order, there wasn’t funding for all of these services, so unless a serious case presented itself, it vanished. Think of it like this: how many yellow cars have you seen in the past week? Being that you haven’t been looking for yellow cars, you have no idea. But if I said the goal was to compile a database of yellow car sightings, you would begin looking for them, and in a matter of days, we would discover many.

Without any active investigation, between 1960-1961, 18 cases of rickets were reported. Between 1961-1962, there were 12 more cases (although government documents claim they were aware of more). In 1964, 24 cases were reported. The Royal Glasgow Hospital for Sick Children reported an additional 32 cases between 1959 and 1962 (approximately 11 per year). The doctors finding the most cases were the ones continuing to run X-rays with the intention of finding cases, such as Dr. Stroud, who found twenty-one cases of rickets. This doctor would take the extra step of running blood tests on children and claimed to have discovered an association between high alkaline phosphatase levels and the disease. He stated, in 20 of the children, elevated alkaline phosphatase levels were found, which included biliary obstruction due to stones, strictures, or tumors. High alkaline phosphatase levels are caused by chemicals.

In 1963, other than the rickets found by doctors and hospitals when ill children came through their doors, the only way rickets cases were located was by the government hiring a commercial firm to send a survey to determine vitamin D intake. The government would later note that surveys are not always accurate because “the information is dependent upon the word of the mother”. Basically, the survey asked mothers if they provided their children with nutritious, vitamin D-filled foods. What mother would say “no”? This survey ended up being trashed because it was “leading in nature”.

A second survey was conducted, this time in Scotland, asking mothers to provide all the sources of food their children ate and a similar survey was ran by the Brits, both still operating under the assumption that the cause of rickets is a lack of vitamin D. The end result was, in Scotland, 2.7 to 27.7 per cent of all children under 3 months were fed liquid cows milk depending on the locality. In the British survey, 2.8 per cent of children aged 0-3 months had been given cow’s milk on the previous day; by 3-5 months and 6-8 months, these figures had risen to 16 and 33 per cent respectively. Both reports indicated that most of those who did not drink fortified milk received some additional Vitamin D, for example, in infant cereals consumed in unstated amounts.

Now the government had what they needed: a substantial lessening in rickets cases due to ending excessive testing, and they also had the surveys showing mothers were feeding vitamin D-supplemented foods. This was the proof used to show vitamin D fortification cured rickets. Additionally, right around this time, major changes in food laws occurred in the UK. These laws were enacted to clean up the food supply, thus making it safer for everyone.

While all of this was going on, other pediatricians still disagreed with the entire thing. Not only were they not seeing rickets now, but they weren’t seeing it back then either. Then there were the doctors who claimed they did find rickets in some children, but firmly expressed it was due to “poor buildings, polluted atmosphere, and other causes”. It had nothing to do with sunlight or lack of fortified foods. On this topic, the government made a quite interesting point: “The distribution of overt rickets in Britain appears to be in pockets, some geographical, some perhaps racial, existing in the midst of areas of apparent freedom from the disease. The report of the Glasgow pediatricians that rickets continues to be encountered in Glasgow is perturbing in view of the immense efforts made by the public health personnel of this city to reduce the incidence of rickets”. So, as you can see, after all this food fortification and testing, followed by ceasing mass testing, some children in poverty-stricken areas were still developing weak bones. (And note, they are dosing everyone in effort to save the few…)

Instead of the government thoroughly analyzing the housing structures within the “pockets”, looking at dietary habits outside of vitamin D, or testing for drug or alcohol use, they assumed the reason these pocket-children had rickets was because they didn’t have enough vitamin D; perhaps they just didn’t have access to it or the access they had wasn’t a large enough amount. The solution was to put the chemical compound into more products and make it more readily available.

As the vitamin D fortification scheme continued, so did the hypercalcemia. In a single year, 1963, there were 91 reported cases! And these are cases that were correctly identified as hypercalcemia at a time when the symptoms of hypercalcemia (nausea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain, etc) matched “viruses” like influenza, and severe cases of hypercalcemia resulting in bone fractures and breaks matched the symptoms they claimed to be from lack of vitamin D.

---

I would come to discover tha

THE WELFARE BABIES

It would turn out that there were two types of welfare mothers. The first relied solely on processed, pasteurized liquid cow’s milk as baby formula. The government claimed this was a problem because the milk hadn’t been fortified with vitamin D (due to regulations that prevented adulteration of liquid cow’s milk). It was never considered that we are the only species that raises our young on processed milk of a completely different species. It was never considered that, because this milk is not intended for human infants, it can cause all kinds of health-related issues.

The other type of mother was feeding her child fortified milk and additional Vitamin D supplements. On top of that, many mothers were also dosing their infants with other vitamins that they had seen advertised in the media. Is it really of any surprise that children living in poverty “pockets”, being fed processed, nutrientless foods or exclusively cow’s milk, while being dosed with assorted chemical cocktails, could have their bones develop poorly?

1966

Come 1966, it would be discovered that the testing methods for rickets were faulty. Well, crud.

BACK IN THE US

We began fortifying and enriching everything. It is damn-near impossible to find a food that has been processed in some way that does not contain chemical vitamins, yet nobody has gotten healthier. Vitamin D is, by far, the most popular supplement of all time, and statistics show the average child gets six assorted pharmaceutical prescriptions every year (chemicals, chemicals, chemicals).

Although they claim “vitamin D cured rickets”, a quick internet search reveals a plethora of new bone-related diseases, including:

• Genetic bone diseases

• Pediatric Skeletal Dysplasias

• Scoliosis

• Blount's disease

• Juvenile Paget's Disease

• Diseases like “Congenital Deformation Diseases” can produce identical deformities

• In addition to Ricketts (yep, it’s still here)

A Google Maps search for “bone doctor near me” reveals this is now a massive industry:

Here are four within a 10-minute drive of each other:

And this isn’t just a Michigan thing. Here’s Canada:

So you tell me, did Vitamin D cure rickets?

---

Enjoy this article? If so, please consider hooking me up with a coffee or becoming a paid sub. And be sure to check out my new venture with my ally, Medicine Girl; ShadowbannedLibrary.com. I have been spending a ton of time converting my best series to beautiful ebooks so history can be downloaded and preserved. I just finished converting The Unexplainable and Illogical Story of the Columbian Exposition (World's Fair) of 1893, as well as Big Pharma Black Magic, Ivermectin: How the World Became Convinced to Eat Insecticide, and more, which are now available for download! Check out the trailer videos for these books, then grab yourself a copy and PRESERVE true history:

NOTE: If the links to get the books don’t work, it’s probably because KoFi nuked our account, so instead, go directly to ShadowbannedLibrary.com.

---

NEXT READ

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---