Most of this study is on the effect of cod liver oil on asthma allergies and assumes that its the Vitamin D causing the problem.
It could well be the impurities in the CLO or high levels of Vitamin A causing the allergy. Sounds like an MP inspired study.
Clinical studies have shown that Vitamin D prevents asthma and low levels are associated with inreased cases of asthma.
this study examines the health of a population from near the dawn of the industrial revolution of a people who live in large dirty cities, much dirtier than ours I would say. They spewed out heavy metals out of short stacks all day long which dumped everything right down on the people causing all kinds of infection and distress. In econmically distressed England in the cities I doubt very many people came to suppement with cod liver oil either.
Then they get into examining the diagnosis of allergy. Well let me tell you something, unless you had a red rash all over your body most doctors in the US could not diagnose a nasal allergy until the mid 90's and they couldn't diagnose a diet induced allergy either. I knew of several cases where parents were taken in for child abuse due to weight loss in their kids. The real cause was allergy to soy that the hosptial doctors insisted they feed them at home, but gave them something different int he hosptial. Allergy to glueten, milk and other protients has not been understood until the last 15 to 20 years and it hasn't one dam thing to do with vitamin d supplementation.
As they tried to establish the advancement of allergy disease they tried to associate it with increased levels of vitamin d. Yet, the biggest climb in allergy stats occured in the 70's....
Now how many vaccines were kids getting in the 70's?
and as the allergy issue continues to skyrocket, now many vaccines do kids in the 90's and 2000 get?
When I think of all the misdiagnosis I have had and all the antibiotics I have taken for what was really allergies I get so mad I could spit fire!
If you really want to get into trying to associate allergy with something I would propose that vaccination and allergy run a parrallel statistical increase. Better hypothisis that the one this guy tries to defend.
Give me a break, is this some pharma shill?
I bet the pharmaceutical industry is really not liking all the reports out on how Vitamin D3 prevents cancer and the like.....I just bet they are freaked.
By the way, since I have been mega dosing on vitamin d 3 I use less asthama medicine, not more.
__________________
�God is the basis of life, life is the basis of energy, energy is the basis of matter.�... Carey Reams
Visit: www.HealthSalon.org
I finally have a solid example of both the benefits of vitamin D supplementation and possible negative effects, in one family.
My brother has an ominous patch of Psoriasis on his right shin. It is exactly in the same spot as my patch of Psoriasis, and I also have Crohn's Disease. This is not a good indication for him.
He started supplementing with vitamin D and the patch is slowly going away, as mine is. I cannot attribute mine going away from D, because it has slowly been going away even prior to D supplementation.
His wife decided to also supplement with D. She started to develop Red blotches on her skin. At first, she did not connect it to the D, but over time she noticed that the blotches would appear shortly after she took the supplemental D.
She asked my brother if he was still taking the vitamin D. Being we are kind of a smart ass kind of family, he said "no, it makes my skin break out in blotches" even though he was taking it, and had no problem with it.
She was not amused, but quit taking the D and the blotches resolved themselves.
I asked him if she reacted negatively to sunlight. He recounted that a normal amount of sunlight did not affect her, but while in Mexico, she would break out in pimples from the excessive sun exposure.
So I think based on this, there are some people that cannot supplement with D, but most people can benefit from it use.
If there is any sentence you don't understand then ask.
I'm lucky and have the full text and will try to explain to you what the evidence is that makes them so confident that this new research shows Calcidiol, 25(OH)D3 is itself a hormone that activates the Vitamin D receptors both by itself and also in synergy with Calcitriol 1.25.
It totally destroys Trevor Marshall's protocol. In fact it suggest that MUCH HIGHER levels of circulating 25(OH)D are desirable and will help your body fight cancer better.
Maybe you are allergic to something that is in your capsules apart from the INERT Vitamin D3 cholecalciferol.
If you are getting sensitivity reactions you need to desensitize your gut and Butyrate is probably a sensible way to go.
I just read your links Ted. Good info. In regards to the marshall protocol for treatment of fibermyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, there are many cases now reported cured with the use of MMS.
Dan, I wonder if her reaction to the vitamin D had something to do with the manufacturer. Would changing the product line help? Regardless, there are some people who will react to supplements. they just have glitches in their metabolic processes that do not allow for it. Perhaps she has to adjust some unknown factor first. People who have sensitivity to the sun are sometimes helped with constitutional homeopathic treatment.
As far as I know,she never had her D level checked. She also has quit drinking Milk as the added D gave her some minor reactions. It is possible that her levels are high already, but I doubt it.
Her husband, (my Brother) did have his levels checked, and they were almost non-existent, and that is why he started taking it to begin with.
She also has a strange liver function. She does not respond to a normal dose of anesthesia. She needs a far greater amount to put her under. The doctor said that her Liver is is able to break down chemicals quickly, and that is not typical. Possibly this has something to do with the intolerance. Since sunlight is not a supplement, and a lot of exposure gives her a strange skin reaction, it seems improbable that it is not the D itself that causes the reaction.
it seems improbable that it is not the D itself that causes the reaction.
Dan
More improbable that D is the cause. Far more likely is the milk. The amount of vitamin D in milk is trivial. Hardly enough to bother with and it's only in fortified milk. I bet she'd have the same reaction to non fortified milk and that particularly if it's low fat (Vit d is fat soluble) has too little D to be measurable.
Remember that Vitamin D3 Cholecalciferol is biologically identical to the form your own skin makes. How can you be allergic to yourself?
You have to take a long, convoluted path to say that both vitamin D supplements, more than normal sunlight exposure, and fortified milk have something in common other than the added D that would cause skin reactions. Why all three? What else is common to all of them? Or you could say they are three unrelated allergies, with one thing in common which seems equally improbable.
You have to take a long, convoluted path to say that both vitamin D supplements, more than normal sunlight exposure, and fortified milk have something in common other than the added D that would cause skin reactions. Why all three? What else is common to all of them? Or you could say they are three unrelated allergies, with one thing in common which seems equally improbable.
Dan
There is a common denominator and that is the same as that which is responsible for placebo and nocebo effects that are almost always recorded in medical drug trials.
Once people have it in mind they are taking a substance that is associated with possible adverse consequences some people have adverse events, even if they have the dummy pills that contain inert substances.
It's what you bring to that situation that is causing the effect.
So your argument is pretty much the same as the common mainstream medicine argument that alternative treatments offer only a placebo effect. It is the expectation that it will help that produces the effect.
Except in this case there was no expectation of a negative effect. It was expected to be a healthy thing to do, based on the evidence that has come to light recently. Why would she have taken it, if she expected a reaction? In spite of her negative effect, my brother has only had a positive effect. Is this placebo also?
You can't have it both ways, attributing positive effects as a real effect and negative ones as a placebo effect.
Which is real and which is placebo?
I prefer to take it for what it indicates at face value. Some people tolerate certain levels of D, and that threshold varies with the individual. As with any other substance, there is a level of tolerance, and a level of intolerance or a level in which it is not beneficial.
Of course there is no way to prove it 100% either way.
So your argument is pretty much the same as the common mainstream medicine argument that alternative treatments offer only a placebo effect. It is the expectation that it will help that produces the effect.
No I'm not against alternative treatments. Where there is good scientific evidence they work I'm sure they do.
Quote:
Except in this case there was no expectation of a negative effect.
But some people have preconceptions that they think a particular amount of a particular substance will have some effect or other and because they "know" that the substance may have powerful effects assume that their taking this substance may produce a powerful reaction.
Quote:
It was expected to be a healthy thing to do, based on the evidence that has come to light recently. Why would she have taken it, if she expected a reaction? In spite of her negative effect, my brother has only had a positive effect. Is this placebo also?
You can't have it both ways, attributing positive effects as a real effect and negative ones as a placebo effect.
I only quote scientific evidence.
I don't report anecdotal stories.
Quote:
Which is real and which is placebo?
It depends which has a credible evidence base. For hundreds of thousands of years humans evolved under the sun and their skins were able to withstand UVB from sunlight. Now they can't Why is that. It's not because the UVB content of sunlight has changed (although there are some measurable changes) The main changes have occured in the diets we eat that have changed the ratio of omega 3 <> omega 6 in our skin and the other inflammatory changes in our diets from refined carbohydrates and fructose that have created pro inflammatory skin cells that will now respond inappropriately to UV light. So it's the nature of the skin not the nature of the vitamin d that is the problem
Quote:
I prefer to take it for what it indicates at face value.
Sounds more to me like you are reluctant to accept the truth.
Quote:
Some people tolerate certain levels of D, and that threshold varies with the individual.
Human skin evolved to create 10,000iu ~ 20,000iu Cholecalciferol over 20~30 minutes full body prone UVB exposure If you react badly to that amount of vitamin D3 you have become maladapted to your environment and you need to look carefully at your diet to re educate you cells into becoming readjusted to the natural environment.
Quote:
As with any other substance, there is a level of tolerance, and a level of intolerance or a level in which it is not beneficial.
indeed more than 50,000iu/daily of vitamin D3 for more than a year may raise your status to above 250ng/ml and produce adverse events. We can be totally certain that amounts under 10,000iu/daily /D3 do not produce adverse events.
Quote:
Of course there is no way to prove it 100% either way.
There have been a sufficient number of studies now for the experts to be absolutely certain what is safe and what isn't. I
f you don't believe in scientific methods then I'm sorry but there is little point in continuing this exchange.
I am considering All studies concerning the subject, including the one in the top of this thread, supported by real life experience. Both can be valid at the same time.
Certainly a handful of Peanuts is completely safe for most of us, but can kill certain individuals. We are not all identical, and to say what is safe for one, is safe for all is obviously flawed.
Anecdotal stories are evidence. I doubt that even 5% of your daily decisions are based on scientific studies. If I developed Red blotches when taking a certain substance and they went away when I did not take it, I certainly would not turn to scientific literature to determine if I should take it or not. Nor would I eat Peanuts if my throat swelled shut, even if scientific evidence indicated Peanuts are safe for everyone.
Common sense trumps studies. I cannot eat Onions because my intestines swell shut when I do. There is no scientific studies that support the fact that Onions cause this reaction, and indeed they do not in a vast majority of the population. I do not eat Onions because they cause an adverse reaction. I do not need a study to prove to me that they do, any more than I need a study to tell me that if I drop a hammer on my foot it will hurt.
To take what you are saying at face value means I should continue to eat Onions until science can determine that I should not, given that my evidence is anecdotal, and not scientific in your estimation.
I never implied in any way that normal or even higher than normal amounts of vitamin D is a detriment to most of the population. Only that there are exceptions to most any generalized safe limits, and I do not think you can possibly construe that as a non-belief is scientific methods. It is only an acknowledgment that there are almost always exceptions to the rule. I do not think any reasonable person would argue that point.
ICertainly a handful of Peanuts is completely safe for most of us, but can kill certain individuals. We are not all identical, and to say what is safe for one, is safe for all is obviously flawed.
Are you proposing that the cholesterol in your skin does not turn into Cholecalciferol when exposed to UVB?
What evidence do you have for such opinions.
Are you suggesting that the form of cholecalciferol made on your skin is in some way biologically different from a biologically identical form derived from lanolon or fish oil?
Quote:
Common sense trumps studies.
Indeed it does and common sense tells us that if human beings were indeed allergic to the natural products their own bodies produce and that are required for the proper functions of over 2000 different gene actions 128 of which regulate the function of the brain we would not have survived the evolutionary process.
Make no mistake Vitamin D3 status makes a huge difference to your immune system, your bone structure and your cognitive function.
If you don't maintain your 25(OH)D level above 55ng/ml you are inviting Cancer, diabetes, Cardivascular disease, infections, MS and a whole host of chronic conditions.
Quote:
To take what you are saying at face value means I should continue to eat Onions until science can determine that I should not, given that my evidence is anecdotal, and not scientific in your estimation.
That is a ludcrous analogy. Onions do not grow on your own skin, They are not made out of your own bodies cells nor are they biologically identical to substances your own body produces.
Quote:
I do not think any reasonable person would argue that point.
I do not have an irrational fear of vitamin D, and do take the supplement as it has not caused any adverse affect nor any discernible positive effect either, in myself. Since I live in a Northern Latitude, I know my D does go down in the Winter months.
I have no dog in this fight. I am merely reporting an adverse affect to Supplemental D, and a positive effect of Supplemental D, in the same family. Also an adverse affect to strong Sun exposure that is not typical.
I am not going to change the story to fit your paradigm, and I do not know why the reaction occurred, but it fits in with evidence of other adverse reactions to the supplement. The case of my brother fits the evidence of positive effects of supplementation. That is science also, and you can refer to their proposed explanation for both of the reactions. I have non of my own.
It is merely a warning to those who supplement that adverse reactions can and do occur for whatever reason. I am not proposing that any one take supplements or not. That is not my decision to make.
I never proposed anything about what UVB does, or does not do. I stated quite clearly in the beginning that when the person was exposed to a greater than normal amount of sun, they developed pimples on their skin. They do not react negatively to normal amounts of Sun exposure. I do not know how much clearer I can be.
Ingesting 10,000 IU of a supplement has not been part of the human diet in the past, so there is not as if it as natural as eating food with natural D and the other compounds, such as bioflavonoids that accompany the D.
When taking vitamin D supplements their skin developed Red Blotches. When they stopped taking it they went away. A lesser reaction was noticed when drinking fortified Milk. This reaction resolved itself when they stopped drinking fortified Milk, just as the study indicates.
Now you may not like that this happened, but it does not change the fact that it did happen. I do not care either way, as I am not married to any particular dogma concerning the subject. I am just reporting what happened.
You are free to interpret any way you please, but I will take it for what is most likely to be, which is an intolerance to a certain, but unknown level, of vitamin D. Why it occurs is unknown to me, but it does not change the fact that it did occur.
I never proposed that the person, or any person, was allergic to D, as you keep insisting I did, only that it appears that the level that is optimum may vary between individuals, and certain people may not tolerate as much, resulting in an adverse reaction to the amounts higher than that optimum level.
I really do not know what is so controversial about that statement, but to each his own.
Possible Negative results of D supplementation
Linear Mode
