vitamin d

Bulldogs,

Get serious. Do you believe that vitamin D doses above 600 IU are hazardous, without the close monitoring of a physician? Which world do you live in?

If this were so, why aren’t literally millions of Americans, who commonly take 1000 to 5000 IU of vitamin D each day, not getting sick from all of that “excess?”

Please, show us a published medical journal article that presents any numerical, clinical data substantiating that >600 IU of vitamin D “could be harmful.”

If so, you’d better not be eating any wild-caught salmon, eat cod, or take a common multi-vitamin; any or all of which would put you in jeopardy.

Where’s the evidence?

Perhaps I’m safe though, inasmuch as my physician fully supports the handful of vitamins, minerals, and supplements I take each day—many of which he takes, too, as he reads the same peer-reviewed journal articles I do. I can sleep well each night, knowing that he knows and “approves” all that I take.

But that raises the question: How might a physician’s knowledge, or even endorsement, of one’s vitamin intake actually affect the mechanisms of toxicity? What if you have (as you might presume me to) the wrong physician, who doesn’t know the authentic but obscure hazards of vitamin D supplementation? How can each of us get the right doctor?

–John of Ohio

 

If the multi-billion dollar American supplements industry caused toxicities and poisonings, at least a few of these ought to turn up in the poison control centers across the country. But they don't. Those of us weird enough to take unregulated vitamins, minerals, and supplements know the risk of letting anyone know of the many debilities these things cause in us. When we start to barf, fall over from brain-fog, or any of the other so-obvious supplement-caused toxicities, we vow to keep it entirely among ourselves. We don't want the general public to learn of the profound danger of these pills and capsules we take in handfuls each day.

And we are exceptionally good at this, as evidenced by this report:


No Deaths from Vitamins
America's Largest Database Confirms Supplement Safety
(OMNS, Dec 28, 2011) There was not even one death caused by a vitamin supplement in 2010, according to the most recent information collected by the U.S. National Poison Data System.

The new 203-page annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, published online at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2010%20NPDS%20Annual%20Report.pdf, shows zero deaths from multiple vitamins; zero deaths from any of the B vitamins; zero deaths from vitamins A, C, D, or E; and zero deaths from any other vitamin.

Additionally, there were no deaths whatsoever from any amino acid or dietary mineral supplement.

Three people died from non-supplement mineral poisoning: two from medical use of sodium and one from non-supplemental iron. On page 131, the AAPCC report specifically indicates that the iron fatality was not from a nutritional supplement.

Fifty-seven poison centers provide coast-to-coast data for the National Poison Data System, "one of the few real-time national surveillance systems in existence, providing a model public health surveillance system for all types of exposures, public health event identification, resilience response and situational awareness tracking."

Well over half of the U.S. population takes daily nutritional supplements. Even if each of those people took only one single tablet daily, that makes 165,000,000 individual doses per day, for a total of over 60 billion doses annually. Since many persons take far more than just one single vitamin or mineral tablet, actual consumption is considerably higher, and the safety of nutritional supplements is all the more remarkable.

Over 60 billion doses of vitamin and mineral supplements per year in the USA, and not a single fatality. Not one.

If vitamin and mineral supplements are allegedly so "dangerous," as the FDA and news media so often claim, then where are the bodies?

Reference:
Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Dart RC. 2010 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS): 28th Annual Report. The full text article is available for free download at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2010%20NPDS%20Annual%20Report.pdf
The data mentioned above are found in Table 22B. Mineral data on page 131; vitamin data on pages 137-139 .

Of course, we'll eventually get our due. Our addiction to vitamins, minerals, and supplements (VMSs) will eventually give us cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, or neurodegeneration---exactlly the the things we think our VMSs are preventing. Feel sorry for us, please.

--John of Ohio

 

Anybody seen any studies out there that says taking several vitamins/minerals/supplements/vit D for an extended period of time makes you sarcastic?

 

I was told by a Doctor to take 5000IU of vitamin D per day and have been trying to ever since.

I'm sure there are far worse thing I can put in my body that would cause a greater risk of a heart attack than a higher dose of vitamin D.

Things like that brisket tacos I ate for lunch today or the fried chicken yesterday.

If it's all the same to y'all I will take my 5000IU a day and eat all the yummy foods I want to.

I don't need big brother or uncle sam to tell me how to live my life.

Hell I bet there is a study that shows if you live in Texas you are at greater risk of having a heart attack.

 

Anything over 600IU could be harmful long term unless overseen by a Dr.

Bulldogs,

Get serious. Do you believe that vitamin D doses above 600 IU are hazardous, without the close monitoring of a physician? Which world do you live in?


Dear God I hope it's called earth, even though with all this l-lysine and Vitamin D it feels like living hell.

 

Too much vitamin D can kill you
May 31, 2012 - 06:28
In recent years vitamin D has become known as a super vitamin. But now a study of a quarter million Danes reveals a link between too much vitamin D and excess mortality.
Keywords: Diseases, Health, Medicine, Nutrition, Vitamin D
SendPDFPrint
By: Martin Ledstrup

Sunshine is a natural source of vitamin D – and the question is whether it can really kill. The jury is still out on that one. A Danish scientist says it’s too early to say which form of vitamin D is associated with increased mortality rates. (Photo: Colourbox)
There have been plenty of success stories about vitamin D in the media in the past few years. Not only does it guide calcium to our bones, it’s also good for fighting off cardiovascular diseases, depression and even cancer.

However, a brand new study now also shows a correlation between vitamin D intake and excess mortality.

The startling new findings, just published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, comes from Darshana Durup, a PhD fellow at the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

Low and high vitamin D levels are harmful
”We found that there is an increased mortality in people with low levels of vitamin D – but surprisingly enough this is also true for people with high vitamin D levels,” says Durup.

“We can draw a curve, suggesting that perhaps too little and too much are both harmful.”

Her research shows that a high concentration of 140 nanomoles of vitamin D per litre of blood (see Factbox) increases the mortality by a factor of 1.42.

A low concentration of 10 nanomoles per litre of blood increases the mortality rate by a factor of 2.31.

We found that there is an increased mortality in people with low levels of vitamin D – but surprisingly enough this is also true for people with high vitamin D levels.Darshana Durup
The optimal amount of vitamin D per litre of blood appears to be 50 nanomoles: at this level, the study found the lowest mortality rates.

Solid research
This is a comprehensive study, based on blood samples from more than a quarter of a million Copenhageners, who have visited a doctor for general health reasons, and who at the same time had their vitamin D levels checked.

According to Durup, the findings fuel an important argument against those who believe that we cannot get too much vitamin D.

“There is no scientific support for the ‘the more, the better’ argument when it comes to vitamin D, and our study doesn’t support that argument either,” she says.

“There has been a lot of research into the effects of low vitamin D levels. But with this study, we hope to inspire further research into the cause of increased mortality with high levels of vitamin D.”

Heated Vitamin D debate
Here she is treading in a minefield: as the popularity of vitamin D has exploded in recent years, the medical debate has become overheated.

Health authorities in both the US and in Denmark are under great pressure from vitamin D proponents among physicians and the pharmaceutical industry to increase the recommended doses of the vitamin.

Facts
The concentration of vitamin D is measured in nanomoles.
It is normally assumed that vitamin D concentration increases by around 3 nanomoles per litre of blood for every 2.5 micrograms of vitamin D intake.
The Danish Health and Medicines Authority recommends at least 7.5 micrograms of vitamin D per day. For instance, 100 grams of smoked herring contains 8 micrograms of vitamin D.
Click here for a list of vitamin D content in other types of food.
A leading American figure in the vitamin D debate, Dr Clifford Rosen, recently armed himself with the existing research and advised the US Food and Drug Administration to be critical of the vitamin.

This led to an onslaught of hate mail from disagreeing colleagues – mails of a professional as wells as a highly personal nature.

Vitamin studies require humility
Darshana Durup’s experiences with the Danish debate are somewhat less harsh, but since this is a sensitive issue, she speaks with caution:

“We have moved into a controversial area. This is because the climate debate and research in nutrition arouses many emotions,” she says.

“That’s why it’s really important for me to stress that even though our research suggests a link between too much vitamin D and high mortality rates, there is still no explanation of why this is so.”

She is also keen to point out that there’s still a higher mortality associated with too little vitamin D than with too much. And out of the quarter million people that she’s helped examine, there were more who lack vitamin D than there were of those who have too much of it.

Some 2,500 of the test subjects had too much vitamin D, whereas more than 20,000 had too little.

Excessive levels could have a variety of causes
Facts
This study is part of the so-called CopD project – an acronym for the Copenhagen Vitamin D Study.
The study is based on 247,574 Copenhageners as test subjects.
Another reason why Durup is being cautious is that we get vitamin D from food, sunshine as well as from vitamin supplements. But the only thing her research shows is that the 2,500 people had too much of vitamin D – not why they had too much of it.

Her scientific ambition is therefore to learn more about why there is this link between excessive vitamin D levels and increased mortality rates.

“Now we need to start looking at whether we can correlate all these blood samples with various disease registries – including cancer registries. We are already working with the Danish Cancer Society,” says Durup.

“In that way we can compare the prevalence of vitamin D in people with different diseases and different causes of death and thus gain a more detailed insight into how the vitamin is linked to illness and mortality," says Durup.

 

There's a difference between can and will. There are studies on just about everything that can kill you.

 

That's what JOH patiently advocates. FIFTY is the magic number. So yeah, take your Vitamin D until you hit optimal levels. He doesn't say anywhere to keep augmenting this number.

So, BD, your post actually validates JOH's suggestion on vitamin D intake.

 

"Fifty is Nifty" is my phrase. Aim for 50 ng/ml of serum vitamin D, for best health.

But 50 nmol/liter is actually only 20 ng/ml, which is regarded by vitamin D experts as rather low and a deficiency state.

American physicians measure serum levels in nanograms per mililiter (ng/ml), whereas European medicine measures it in nanomoles per liter (nmol/l). They are not the same. For vitamin D, a ng/ml is 40% of a nmol/l.

So, in fact, this paper did not authenticate my Fifty is Nifty number. It's way too low. Those with a mere 20 ng/ml, or 50 nmol/l, are open to just a pile of vitamin D deficiency diseases and conditions; as stated in this Australian paper:

"Vitamin D deficiency can be classified as:
• mild (25–50 nmol/L)
• moderate (12.5–25.0 nmol/L), and
• severe (<12.5 nmol/L)
with levels of 50–100 nmol/L thought of as being vitamin D insufficient."
http://www.racgp.org.au/afpbackissues/2008/200812/200812stroud.pdf

50 ng/ml would be 125 nmol/l.

--John of Ohio

 

Why should you keep your vitamin D level around 50 ng/ml? Dr. Cannell of the Vitamin D Council - Sept 2011
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f545cba30e1f9697fddbe8acb&id=8809d74f4f&e=1f9eb8e0b6
Summarized:
1. 40-60 ng: Chimpanzees
2. 40-60 ng: Lifeguards or other people outdoors with minimal clothes
3. 40-60 ng: Needed to have vitamin D in breast milk
4. >40 ng: Body starts to store vitamin D – for use in the winter

Fifty is nifty --- and is needed.

--John of Ohio

 

The Endocrine Society, itself, says, in effect, that Fifty is Nifty:

"Additionally, the Endocrine Society found enough evidence in its review to suggest that the vitamin D level in the blood should be at least 30 ng/mL and further maintains that toxicity from the vitamin is rare. Ideally, the level should be between 40-60 ng/mL for children and adults...."
http://labtestsonline.org/news/the-endocrine-society-weighs-in-on-vitamin-d/

Now what would these people know about proper, safe, or effective vitamin D levels?

--John of Ohio

 

The mortality rate of those who take too much vitamin D is the same as those who don't. I guarantee that if you take 5000IU of vitamin D everyday for the rest of your life you will die.

 

John, the immune system is very complex and I was recently reading a medical book of my girlfriends and Vitamin D is a lot more complicated than popping a supplement as outlined below.
Many different types of viramin D and depending on your immune system which can only be understood via blood test and working with an immunologist you could be playing with fire in terms of mm.


Only when these cells are overwhelmed do we begin to use the more specific humoral immune system, (the Th2 immune process). This Th2 process is a complex series of events triggered after antigens enter the body. Part of the reason that vaccinations can be so challenging for some of us is the fact that they bypass the body's cellular immune system. We inject the antigen directly into the muscle tissue, bypassing the skin and mucus membranes which would ordinarily be the first responders.

The vitamin D receptor on the cell membrane regulates the number of immune cells put into circulation. The number of immune cells is vital to the response of the immune system to invaders. The receptor is regulated by various forms of vitamin D.

• 1,25 di-hydroxy Vitamin D (1,25 D) is the form which turns the receptor on, thereby increasing the number of macrophages released. Vitamin D receptor activation causes an increase in the synthesis of antimicrobial peptides which can kill bacteria, viruses and other invaders immediately, in an "innate" or "cellular" immune response.

• 25-OH Vitamin D (25 D), the form that we commonly take as a supplement or eat in our food, is the form which turns the Vitamin D receptor off, thereby decreasing the number of macrophages released. It often works well, temporarily, if the condition is one of high inflammation. However, 25 D is converted to the 1,25 D form by the kidneys, and by sunlight acting on the 25 D form in the skin, which then turns the receptor back on, thus potentially resulting in increased inflammation in the final analysis.

So, is it bad to take a vitamin D supplement? Of course not – if you don't have sarcoidosis or other Th1 autoimmune inflammatory disease. Many of us are indeed vitamin D deficient, our immune systems are weak, we do not produce the macrophages that we need to ward off illness. Our bodies are perfectly capable of making the homeostasic adjustment between 25 D and 1,25 D so that our immune systems do not become hyperactive. However, some of us are not able to make that adjustment – our Th1 systems are already so far out of kilter that taking more vitamin D supplement just makes things worse. For these people, vitamin D balance is much more complicated than just taking a pill.

 

Bulldogs, if what you've described (conceptually) is a problem, I've simply seen no results of it, in any form.

First, the medical experts, such as the physicians and researchers at the Vitamin D Council, and others, simply have never once mentioned the need for consultation and blood testing by an immunologst before taking standard (2000 to 5000 IU) daily and continuing doses of vitamin D3.

Neither of my two physicians has ever questioned any of this, with my ingestion of 7000 IU of D3 each day (a separate 5000 IU softgel, along with 2000 IU included in my multi-vitamin).

Those with diagnosed sarcoidosis (a relatively rare disease) are, of course, advised to stay away from vitamin D supplementation. I'm not aware of the incidence of diagnosed Th1 autoimmune inflammatory diease; or even of the disease itself. If vitamin D is a complication, patients woud certainly be advised by their physicians to avoid the vitamin.

But clearly, these two vitamin D-adverse conditions are uncommon, and when present and diagnosed, physicians would direct proper treatment and care, including vitamin D avoidance, etc.

But relatively few are afflicted with these debilitations. For the massive numbers of the rest of us, without sarcoidosis or Th1 autoimmune inflammatory disease, the matter is moot.

Does anyone know the number of cases of either disease in the US?

--John of Ohio

 

Bulldogs,

Here's a journal article that seems to contradict the information in your girlfriend's textbook:

http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/229/11/1136.full

Mounting Evidence for Vitamin D as an Environmental Factor Affecting Autoimmune Disease Prevalence
Margherita T. Cantorna1 and Brett D. Mahon
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

Abstract
Low vitamin D status has been implicated in the etiology of autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and inflammatory bowel disease. The optimal level of vitamin D intake required to support optimal immune function is not known but is likely to be at least that required for healthy bones. Experimentally, vitamin D deficiency results in the increased incidence of autoimmune disease. Mechanistically, the data point to a role for vitamin D in the development of self-tolerance. The vitamin D hormone (1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D3) regulates T helper cell (Th1) and dendritic cell function while inducing regulatory T-cell function. The net result is a decrease in the Th1-driven autoimmune response and decreased severity of symptoms. This review discusses the accumulating evidence pointing to a link between vitamin D and autoimmunity. Increased vitamin D intakes might decrease the incidence and severity of autoimmune diseases and the rate of bone fracture.

--John of Ohio

 

JoH,

We will agree to disagree on this.

I can't argue with an 87% cure rate. I mean people with mm should see you about mm just as they should take theor kids to St. Jude's or MD Anderson for cancer I believe their cure rate for Leukemia is about the same as yours for mm, maybe a little higher.

You win! An 87% cure rate for mm leaves me nothing to say. Keep up he good work.

 

JOH:
MM is a Th2 dominant disease confirmed via blood testing, why one would want to supress Th1 activity/response is beyond me, but more power to you.

The key is to balance Th1 and Th2 along with their subset of cells.

Peace.

Have a great day.

 

Bulldogs,

Thanks, but the cure rate of my Meniere's Treatment Regimen is, profoundly, zero.

Would that I (or anyone else) had an authentic cure for Meniere's Disease. The problem is this. Once one has the disease, it persists chronically, with intermittant ups and downs. A cure would be a treatment that simply puts an end to the symptoms, without subsequent or chronic treatments or medication. No such animal in the Meniere's treatment barn, even over in the obscure corner where my animal gets fed (and let out to pasture from time to time, as on this wesite).

Nope, the John of Ohio Meniere's Treatment Regimen is a chronic on-going treatment that, yes, has a recorded ~86% success rate, but never yields a cure. One needs to stay on the treatment's regimen to have the best chances of remaining symptom-free. Those of us who have gained symptomatic relief from the regimen have sometimes (regretably) gone off it, thinking that we were "cured," that MM was gone and all was well. But it wasn't. The symptoms soon returned in strength, whereupon we re-started the regimen and symptoms once again became suppressed. We are stuck with popping all the pills in the regimen each day for the rest of our lives, in the same way diabetics must take insulin in perpetuity. Not a cure, by any means --- but it sure beats the alternative.

The regimen is here, for those who need to (and should) scrutinize it:
http://www.zoominternet.net/~kcshop/JOH.pdf

--John of Ohio

 

Bulldogs,

Whether or not Meniere's is, in fact, a "Th2 dominant disease confirmed via blood testing" is yet questionable. Neither my ENT nor general practitioner have ever prescribed blood testing for my chronic (since 1995) Meniere's. It's not a subject I've studied or know anything of usefulness about (perhaps indicated by my abstract posting above).

But let me raise a question that seems obvious, each time I read of an implied autoimmune etiology or insolvent with MM. If Meniere's is an autoimmune disease, why or how can it occur---as it does almost universally---in just one ear at the onset? Unless disrupted by some pathogen (a herpes virus is most likely), the tissues of each inner ear are genetically, histologicallly, and immunologically identical.

What, then, is the biochemical mechanism that focuses an autoimune response to only one inner ear? What causes an autoimmune attack on the putatively identical Meniere's inner ear over the normal, non-symptomatic contralateral inner ear? A purely autoimmune cause for Meniere's, given the universal unilaterality, seems purely magical. There ought to be some plausible biomolecular mechanism to account for this apparent anomaly.

Putative Meniere’s causes such as trauma, infection, or nerve displacement or pressure all fit the one-sided initial state of the disease. A purely autoimmune explanation, in the absence of an initiating localized infection, does not.

In the simplest form, the question is this. Why doesn’t the dysfunctioning immune system attack both inner ears right at the start? They are otherwise identical, if autoimmunity is the sole cause of the disease.

–John of Ohio