https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40423327...alth-diabetes/

"Super-high doses � above 10,000 IUs a day � are known to cause kidney damage"

"
Wait a minute: Headlines in recent years have insisted the opposite, that a majority of people don't get enough vitamin D, especially during the winter.


What explains the contradiction?


A relatively inexpensive blood test measures something called 25-hydroxy vitamin D, the active form in the body. Most testing laboratories are using a too-high cutoff for those blood levels, said report co-author Dr. Clifford Rosen of the Maine Medical Center. The report says at least 20 nanograms is adequate for bone health, while many labs instead list people as low if their blood levels are below 30 ng. Serious vitamin D deficiencies are diagnosed when levels dip well below 20, something that hasn't changed."

Some unpublished study probably showed Vit D had awesome effects in a certain percentage of the population, much more than the studies that are published and Big Pharma will lose billions a yr on people taking it.

They pulled komucha off the market and replaced it with something that is basically dead and useless. Now Fiji water will be no longer; they say it is due to the fiji govt and taxation, but Fiji Water is pretty high in silica and is a great supplement.

Anything that has great health effects is a threat to the profits of big pharma.

"A National Cancer Institute study last summer was the latest to report no cancer protection from vitamin D and the possibility of an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with the very highest D levels. Super-high doses — above 10,000 IUs a day — are known to cause kidney damage, and Tuesday's report sets 4,000 IUs as an upper daily limit — but not the amount people should strive for."

You have to look at who is involved in this.. They have a lot to loose if people don't get cancer and other diseases. All these studies on the benefits of Vitamin D3 that Ted brings to us are not particularly new, they have just been shoved in the corner hoping no one would take serious notice. Now people have noticed...

So show us this study refered to in the above paragraph and who paid for it please... so we can rip it apart!

Its a death gasp... as they try to hold on to media and mind control of the masses

__________________

Who is over 45??????? Remember in the 70s they said butter was bad for you and margarine was good for you; along with accompaning studies that showed this! When statins came out there were no studies they reduced heart disease, now every statin has tons of big pharma sponsored studies that show this. There have been so many positive studies done on Vitamin E and heart disease, but all we hear are the negative ones.

In the 70s, there were tons of studies on Vit E, margarine vs. butter etc and they were all kept quiet.

Look at the dates of the references https://www.doctoryourself.com/shute_protocol.html

https://www.doctoryourself.com/estory.htm

https://heelspurs.com/diabetes.html

You can read the report here

Bear in mind the list of panel members.

A. Catharine RossProfessor of Nutrition and Occupant of Dorothy FoehrHuck Chair in Nutrition, Pennsylvania State University
Steven A. Abrams Professor of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine
John F. Aloia Professor, SUNY at StonyBrook, Chief Academic Officer, Winthrop-University Hospital
Patsy M. BrannonProfessor, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University
Steven K. Clinton Professor, Division of Hematology and Oncology, The Ohio State University
Ramon A. Durazo-Arvizu Associate Professor, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine
J. Christopher Gallagher Professor of Medicine, Creighton University Medical Center
Richard L. Gallo Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics, University of California–San Diego
Glenville Jones Head, Department of Biochemistry and Professor of Biochemistry & Medicine, Queens University, Ontario
Christopher S. Kovacs Professor of Medicine (Endocrinology), Memorial University of Newfoundland
Joann E. Manson Professor of Medicine and the Elizabeth Brigham Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School
Susan T. Mayne Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Public Health
Clifford J. Rosen Senior Scientist, Maine Medical Center Research Institute
Sue A. Shapses Professor, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers University

How many leaders in the field of vitamin D research are included?

Well there are a few names I recognise but those are not the people I would regard as lead researchers or the most knowledgeable in Vitamin D research.

Ask a panel of secondraters to produce a report and who would expect anything but a second rate report.

Rather than place the onus on those proposing to restore historically higher vitamin d status than those currently achievable, given the increasing amounts of ozone in urban and industrialized agriculture, the onus of proof should be on establishing that the lower level currently obtainable under ozone polluted atmospheres are indeed safe.

Given that year on year 25(OH)D levels are declining the boot has to be on the other foot.

What evidence do the panel have for supposing that human breast milk is not meant to be vitamin D replete at 60ng/ml or that babies should not benefit from vitamin D replete breast milk?

Given that below 40ng/ml the human body does not store vitamin D3 why do the panel suppose not having a reserve store of D3 (as happens at 60ng/ml) to last through the winter does not give those people a natural advantage in immune function?

Only when we have studies comparing those maintaining 25(OH)D levels above 50ng/ml with those below 30ng/ml will we know for certain but in order to demonstrate the benefits those levels will have to be sustained over several years. It's also no good thinking it's a one size fits all scenario. We know perfectly well that at any daily vitamin D intake the response is around 60ng/l 150ng/ml from the lowest to the highest responders. So we have to 25(OH)D test at least twice yearly everyone on the trial to ensure the minimum status 30ng/ml or 50ng/ml are sustained through the year and over the whole extent of the trial.

I'm not putting my life at risk of unnecessary infections or cancer by opting to be in the 30ng/ml group. If I can stay in the 60ng/ml group I'll happily participate.
But I am not convinced by that group of losers.

PS I should perhaps say that I've not quarrel with their calcium findings. I've been concerned about calcium intakes for some time and I doubt anyone needs more than 600mg/daily calcium in addition to food/water sources. I can't see why most people cannot obtain sufficient calcium from food sources. It's a totally different position than vitamin D for which food sources can only provide 10% of daily need and we can't rely on laying naked in the midday sun if that was socially acceptable.

Yep, all them professors of nutrition and educators at leading medical schools and still the preferred hospital food is white bread, potatoes, canned fruit and jello with lots of ghastly Ensure.

They are mindless robots repeating what their paychecks deem that they must say.

Do bear in mind they had a total of 8 sessions to thrash out this report. They report all the meetings were amicable.

If they cared as much about this issue as I do the meetings SHOULD NOT have been amicable. Some of them should have be seriously challenging the basis of current practice, not questioning the reasons for change.

Human skin, fully exposed under unpolluted sunshine creates 10,000~20,000iu vitamin D3 in a fairly short time.

Those are the NATURAL INTAKES evolution deemed necessary.

Anyone who thinks going against nature is sensible had better watch out.

I will add this....

I have now been taking vitamin D3 for over a year and a half now....about 4000 - 10000 IU a day.

I still get just as sick as I ever did. So, when Mike Adams says take vitamin D3...and you won't get the flu....I say incorrect. At least, for me, that is not true.

Who are the leaders in the field of vitamin D research & what are their credentials?

__________________

80% of the names on that list are karmically scheduled to have cancer if they get to live to be 80. Most of those will die from it or the treamtments they mindlessly believe in.

[QUOTE=Ted_Hutchinson;173384]Do bear in mind they had a total of 8 sessions to thrash out this report. They report all the meetings were amicable.

QUOTE]

Obviously they all agree that they want to keep their paychecks and postitions, hence no conflict. Infact if one stepped out of line all the others would come down on them, to either castrate their career or silence them by whatever means necessary.

They are not fools. They know the stakes of the game and they are high.

Those who step out of line loose their jobs, have their offices raided by swat teams, are distroyed financially, loose their homes, their families, their licenses, go to jail or are driven out of the country and historically, even to suicide.

Should have said, who are the vit D research leaders other than Bruce Hollis, Michael Holick, and JJ Cannell?

Have you had your blood levels checked?

Ted I noticed there is a Merck VP on their board also. And it is privately funded....even though non profit.

I imagine the panel was spoon fed the info so they had no other choice.
There is one very obvious gap they don't mention. Your bare skin generates 10000+ units of D3 in the summer in 1/2 hour or so with white skin. If that was toxic all the kids at the pool would be sick. They have a bad case of groupthink.

Then there is no mention of D2 vs D3. D2 is supposed to be more toxic.

And what timing- just before flu season. Cast doubt and everyone will cut back their D intake. Good for business.

There are cases where the D3 gets converted by tumors in excess. So maybe they are swayed by this.

Also Vit D needs magnesium for proper function. Note most are low on Mg also.
Not all flus are reduced by Vit D. Many are.

Looks like a half baked study and even worse conclusions.

Vieth presents a well argued response to the claim that those with higher vitamin D levels in Finland appear to have more aggressive pancreatic cancers.
How to Optimize Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent Cancer, Based on Cellular Adaptation and Hydroxylase Enzymology
remember Finland is at extreme northernly latitude, those with the highest vitamin D status are those who also have the greatest RANGES from high/low/high hence more/greater changes of status and more periods of imbalance. It's why I prefer to keep my 25(OH)D both HIGH and STABLE with daily supplementing throughout the year but higher amount in winter than summer.

and the overall evidence remains the case that Ultraviolet B irradiance and vitamin D status are inversely associated with incidence rates of pancreatic cancer worldwide.