Vitamin D form sunlihgt - seems Ted is right.

Ted_Hutchinson

Penny-Pincher!! wrote: »

I have never been hostile in your posts and always find your posts very informative

I wasn't having a go at you.

however-you are not a doctor and not all illnesses that cause low Vit D levels can be treated as easily as you claim.

You won't know until you try.
Why use a form that is known to be expensive and unreliable when a cheaper more effective more efficient form is readily available?

I am under some of the top consultants/professors in the UK, so am pretty sure they know what they are doing.

While I am not a doctor I can read and I keep myself up to date with the latest vitamin D research.
I strongly passionately and sincerely believe you and your health professionals are misguided.

Since vitamin D2 is approximately 30% as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining serum 25-hydroxyvitaminD levels,117,118 up to three times as much vitamin D2 may be required to maintain sufficient levels.

Just look at the way 25(OH)D naturally depletes.

The half life of 25(OH)D=10-19 days

So 300,000iu D2= 100000iu D3 approx

So after your jab you have the equivalent of 100000iu/d3

19days later at best you have approx 50,000iu left
day 38 you have 25000iu
day 57 you have 12500iu

then consider your body uses 4000iu/daily.
Do your mental arithmetic and convince me I am wrong and your professors can do simple arithmetic.

I wish my illnesses could have been prevented by a Vitamin D tablet, but believe me, they couldn't have!

That is your opinion. If you had maintained a natural vitamin D status at least over 100nmol/l and preferably between 130-150nmol/l as your body evolved to stabilise at naturally who can say what would have happened.

PS Back to thread topic
Vitamin D Benefits from Sun Exposure Outshine Cancer Risk
"cancer diagnosis in late summer and autumn when serum vitamin D status is optimal was associated with about a 20% advantage in relative risk of death."

Does anyone know a UK doctor who checks 25(OH)D at the earliest possible moment when considering a potential cancer diagnosis?

Does anyone know a UK doctor who raises 25(OH)D to 150nmol/l as quickly as possible in cancer scenarios?
25(OH)D calcidiol is metabolised in the kidneys to calcitriol. (although 80% of calcitriol is made in the tissues that use it so the whole process also occurs in the skin as well as other tissues)
Right now we believe that 1 alpha, 25-dihydroxy vitamin D3 downregulates pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin 12, interleukin 2, and interferon gamma, and that it enhances cytokines that inhibit inflammation, including interleukin 4 and interleukin 10,”

mo79

You shouldn't let resistance get to you Ted. I'm with you of course, but it's only natural for people to be wary of 'some guy' on the net. - no matter how enthusiastic and referenced.

To others,
The Dr. is who we all bow down to and respect, but of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't self-research and question things to get a better understanding.
We're quick to kick up a fuss when the govt. makes an evident stinker, and the same should be applied to the medical industry. Not to be irritants - just to ensure that we get the right quality. Our questioning increases their knowledge. Our silence assumes satisfaction.

Nelski

OK so maybe its not "peer reviewed" but Dr Chris Steele on This Morning was suggesting 90% of the population has insufficient Vit D and he recommended sunbathing (without burning) when possible and when not TAKING SUPPLEMENTS:D (didnt make any dosage recommendations but its a start)

Ted your efforts are finally being recognised by the "real doctors" good for you for all your patience around such hostility in the past. (just reordered some 5000 for myself and my folks who are also Ted fans!!)

melancholly

i just want to say that i'm not hostile to the idea that vitamin D is important and has health benefits. i did, however, become very hostile to Ted's attitude and his way of putting this across when he effectively told a parent whose child had been diagnosed with autism that it was her fault for not taking supplements during the pregnancy! i'm happy for health suggestions, but i'm not happy with the constant aggression directed at doctors. i'm also uncomfortable for detailed papers to be cited in the way in which they are, since the specifics are lost on most people and i think it is a very poor way to communicate science in general, not just on this specific topic. it's also very strange that threads that seem to less directed at medical advice get deleted and these do not - not Ted's fault at all! as i've said before, it's not the message about vitamin D that bugs me, it's the way that it is made and the way that all genuine, reasonable concerns or other opinions (not including just plain insults!) are so nastily dealt with!

Penny-Pincher!!

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

I wasn't having a go at you.
You won't know until you try.
Why use a form that is known to be expensive and unreliable when a cheaper more effective more efficient form is readily available?
While I am not a doctor I can read and I keep myself up to date with the latest vitamin D research.
I strongly passionately and sincerely believe you and your health professionals are misguided.

Since vitamin D2 is approximately 30% as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining serum 25-hydroxyvitaminD levels,117,118 up to three times as much vitamin D2 may be required to maintain sufficient levels.

Just look at the way 25(OH)D naturally depletes.

The half life of 25(OH)D=10-19 days

So 300,000iu D2= 100000iu D3 approx

So after your jab you have the equivalent of 100000iu/d3

19days later at best you have approx 50,000iu left

day 38 you have 25000iu
day 57 you have 12500iu

then consider your body uses 4000iu/daily.
Do your mental arithmetic and convince me I am wrong and your professors can do simple arithmetic.
That is your opinion. If you had maintained a natural vitamin D status at least over 100nmol/l and preferably between 130-150nmol/l as your body evolved to stabilise at naturally who can say what would have happened.

PS Back to thread topic
Vitamin D Benefits from Sun Exposure Outshine Cancer Risk
"cancer diagnosis in late summer and autumn when serum vitamin D status is optimal was associated with about a 20% advantage in relative risk of death."

Does anyone know a UK doctor who checks 25(OH)D at the earliest possible moment when considering a potential cancer diagnosis?

Does anyone know a UK doctor who raises 25(OH)D to 150nmol/l as quickly as possible in cancer scenarios?
25(OH)D calcidiol is metabolised in the kidneys to calcitriol. (although 80% of calcitriol is made in the tissues that use it so the whole process also occurs in the skin as well as other tissues)
Right now we believe that 1 alpha, 25-dihydroxy vitamin D3 downregulates pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin 12, interleukin 2, and interferon gamma, and that it enhances cytokines that inhibit inflammation, including interleukin 4 and interleukin 10,”

All very interesting but as stated in previous post I am sure that my consultants know what they are doing. I am not a bulk standard patient so many factors have to be taken into consideration when giving me any medication.

PP
xx

Ted_Hutchinson

melancholly wrote: »

i did, however, become very hostile to Ted's attitude and his way of putting this across when he effectively told a parent whose child had been diagnosed with autism that it was her fault for not taking supplements during the pregnancy!

That is a total misrepresentation of the facts. I simply drew attention to Dr Cannell's theory that Vitamin D deficiency in the womb and while the brain is developing affects behaviour and may be responsible for Autism.

Since Cannell raised the issue further tests have shown developmental absence of this vitamin affects brain function in another species (mouse), and lends further weight to the hypothesis that DVD deficiency in humans may contribute to adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes

recommendations for vitamin D supplementation of at-risk groups, including nursing infants, the elderly, and African-Americans appear warranted to ensure adequacy

As Vitamin D3 supplementation is cheap and effective it is surely safer for any child with a brain dysfunction to have optimal vitamin d status while their brain is developing than not.
The sooner mothers with autistic children are aware of this the better.
It may be in time (but I doubt it) Cannell's theory is discredited, but for the moment it is better to be safe than sorry and err on the side of caution and ensure a 25(OH)D above 100nmol/l. Risk Nil. Cost trivial.

I don't think on a forum such as this personal opinions are warranted. People need information and as close to certain facts as medical scientific research can provide.

It is perfectly possible for anyone to go to the library with the title of a paper such as Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 y: nationwide cohort study of dietary and lifestyle predictors and request a full text copy. My library provides them for a relatively small fee, I'm sure your's will also.

But enter Hyppönen in the pubmed search box and if you select under the Limits tab:" only items with links to free full text"
you will find sufficient of her work to have a very good idea, combined with the abstract material from her other work, the state of Vitamin D insufficiency of that particular UK population sample.

Vitamin D in pregnancy: an old problem still to be solved? The National Diet and Nutrition Survey of British adults suggests that if such a threshold were applied to UK population data, some 80–90% would be considered at risk of deficiency

High prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in newborn infants of high-risk mothers

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. With limited sun exposure, an intake of 400 IU/day vitamin D(3) did not sustain circulating maternal 25(OH)D levels, and thus, supplied only extremely limited amounts of vitamin D to the nursing infant via breast milk. Infant levels achieved exclusively through maternal supplementation were equivalent to levels in infants who received oral vitamin D supplementation. Thus, a maternal intake of 6400 IU/day vitamin D elevated circulating 25(OH)D in both mother and nursing infant.

Read the evidence, get the full text from the library if you feel you really must.

Then consider the DOH latest press release on vitamin D.
Sunshine Vitamin d-eemed essential for pregnant women - Cases of vitamin D deficiency and Rickets are on the rise -
The Department of Health is encouraging pregnant and breastfeeding women to boost their intake of vitamin D in the darker winter months. Healthcare professionals say more children than ever are presenting with vitamin D deficiency which can cause seizures and rickets.

Does anyone really think that urging mother to add a mere 400iu/D3 is a sensible appropriate response to the current Vitamin D insufficient/deficiency situation?

melancholly thinks I am unjustified in being angry with doctors for neglecting this issue and failing to check 25(OH)D status and failure to use a simply straightforward natural substance Cholecalciferol Vitamin D3 at effective strengths to raise maternal vitamin d status to a level that optimises brain development and enhances the health prospects of both mother and child.

I believe I am fully justified in everything I write. I am just amazed that so few other people are as irate and incensed about the current level of UK medical incompetence as I am. You'd surely all be mad if you discovered your garages were keeping your tyre pressures at 25% optimal status just so they can flog you more tyres and fuel.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable to be harsh on those who scaremonger by repeating myths that have no justification in modern medical science.

I take the trouble to provide evidence for every statement I make. I think it is wholly reasonable for others, if they want to dispute my posts, to respond with information that is equally up to date and from equally reliable sources.

mo79

Melancholly, I wouldn't take Ted's approach to heart. It's hard to detect emotion on this board, so what I believe is extreme passion can seem as aggression. In the end he's not forcing you to heed this, he just very much hopes you do.

Penny-Pincher, if you can, try and discuss D3 with a consultant. It depends on if they're receptive to any degree. If you can work with them and this modern information that hasn't filtered to them; that's even better.

***

And oh...Cholesterol highest in Winter..
And we we know vit D is lowest in Winter.

Quite clear ain't it, seeing as cholesterol is converted into D.
This is the effect of the biggest selling (toxic) drug in the world, Lipitor (atorvastatin)...

Penny-Pincher!!

mo79 wrote: »

Melancholly, I wouldn't take Ted's approach to heart. It's hard to detect emotion on this board, so what I believe is extreme passion can seem as aggression. In the end he's not forcing you to heed this, he just very much hopes you do.

Penny-Pincher, if you can, try and discuss D3 with a consultant. It depends on if they're receptive to any degree. If you can work with them and this modern information that hasn't filtered to them; that's even better.

***

And oh...Cholesterol highest in Winter..
And we we know vit D is lowest in Winter.

Quite clear ain't it, seeing as cholesterol is converted into D.
This is the effect of the biggest selling (toxic) drug in the world, Lipitor (atorvastatin)...

Thanks! I have just googled and it looks like I may be unable to take D3 with Warfarin...is this correct? I am also on methotrexate, prednisilone, Tramadol and a few other meds. It states it has Vitamin K in it which I cant take anymore of as I am at my maximum intake and know this affects my INR levels. I have to take Fortisip Protein drinks 3 times daily too which have Vit K, Vit D and loads of other nutrients.

PP
xx

Ted_Hutchinson

Penny-Pincher!! wrote: »

Thanks! I have just googled and it looks like I may be unable to take D3 with Warfarin...is this correct?

Drug Interactions Checker there are several of these online if you need to check out interactions.

chickalittle

And oh...Cholesterol highest in Winter..
And we we know vit D is lowest in Winter.

Quite clear ain't it, seeing as cholesterol is converted into D.
This is the effect of the biggest selling (toxic) drug in the world, Lipitor (atorvastatin)...[/quote]


I'm confused by this statement - does cholestrol convert into Vit D? So if you have higher cholesterol is the body producing more vit D? But that doesn't make sense then against the 1st sentence.....that higher cholesterol in winter = lower vit d.