Adult acne cure

Ted_Hutchinson

melancholly wrote: »

still feel the need to push for vitamin D to be a panacea (autism, cancer, acne etc etc).

Eventually you will discover the connection between low Vitamin D status and autism.
Coal-Fired Power Plants and Autism
Interesting report. The connection to mercury ties in with other theories relating to vitamin d and mercury levels.

Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence.
The objective of this study was to determine if proximity to sources of mercury pollution in 1998 were related to autism prevalence in 2002. Autism count data from the Texas Educational Agency and environmental mercury release data from the Environmental Protection Agency were used. We found that for every 1000 pounds of industrial release, there was a corresponding 2.6% increase in autism rates (p<.05) and a 3.7% increase associated with power plant emissions(P<.05). Distances to these sources were independent predictors after adjustment for relevant covariates. For every 10 miles from industrial or power plant sources, there was an associated decreased autism Incident Risk of 2.0% and 1.4%, respectively (p<.05). While design limitations preclude interpretation of individual risk, further investigations of environmental risks to child development issues are warranted.

Does vitamin D explain the role of vaccines, mercury, and heavy metals?

Vitamin D's role in increasing glutathione levels may explain the link between mercury and other heavy metals, oxidative stress, and autism. For example, activated vitamin D lessens heavy metal induced oxidative injuries in rat brain. The primary route for brain toxicity of most heavy metals is through depletion of glutathione. Besides its function as a master antioxidant, glutathione acts as a chelating (binding) agent to remove heavy metals, like mercury. Autistic individuals have difficulty excreting heavy metals, like mercury. If brain levels of activated vitamin D are too low to employ glutathione properly, and thus unable to remove heavy metals, they may be damaged by heavy metal loads normal children easily excrete. That is, the mercury in Thiomerosol vaccines may have injured vitamin D deficient children while normal children would have easily bound the mercury and excreted it. These studies offer further hope that sun‑exposure or vitamin D supplements may help autistic children by increasing glutathione and removing heavy metals. Not only do we have more clues that vitamin D is involved in autism, the vitamin D theory just did something else: it explained two other theories of autism, the mercury accumulation theory and the oxidative stress theory. Lin AM, Chen KB, Chao PLAntioxidative effect of vitamin D3 on zinc‑induced oxidative stress in CNS.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005 Aug;1053:319–29. Valko M, Morris H, Cronin MTMetals, toxicity and oxidative stress.Curr Med Chem. 2005;12(10):1161–208. Kern JK, Jones AMEvidence of toxicity, oxidative stress, and neuronal insult in autism.J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2006 Nov–Dec;9(6):485–99.

It bears repeating that the amount of activated vitamin D in the brain directly depends on the amount of vitamin D made in the skin or ingested orally.

Everything I write here is based on recent medical scientific research. If you can't stand the truth being spoken then that's your problem.

melancholly

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

If you can't stand the truth being spoken then that's your problem.

and until you understand that the way you make your point is rude, pushy and puts people off, you will continue to be dismissed as a nutter, which is your problem. i can't even imagine what it must be like to live life seeing conspiracies at every turn and to feel the need to spend so much time on a moneysaving forum bleating on about vitamin D, linking to articles that 99% of people can't read properly as they aren't experts or searching out any thread related to any condition and telling people it can all be prevented with one supplement..... i may have bad skin and scars but it's you i feel sorry for.

onewingedangel

If I'm completely honest I found vitamin d helps too.
sorry.xx

Ted_Hutchinson

melancholly wrote: »

but it's you i feel sorry for.

What you can't face up to is the fact that I may be right, not just with Autism and Vitamin D.

But also Higher Serum Vitamin D3 Levels Are Associated with Better Cognitive Test Performance in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease

and This study supports the hypothesis that sunlight exposure reduces risk of advanced breast cancer among women with light skin pigmentation

But also for acne

Vitamins as Hormones

It is moneysaving to spend the trivial amount of $ necessary to maintain a natural level enabling the body to regulate intestinal calcium absorption is optimal at serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3) concentrations above 80 nM. Vitamin D(3) inputs from all sources required to sustain such a level amount to 3600-4200 IU/d. Daily oral intakes as high as 10,000 IU are safe.

dholtuk2

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

What you can't face up to is the fact that I may be right, not just with Autism and Vitamin D.

You may actually be right about the vitamin D thing, but your attitude is completely wrong. You are pushing this on people in a way which makes no sense at all to the majority of us. You dont have to be so abrupt in your mannor and maybe write your posts so that they are easily understood. I have personally read stuff about the benefits of vit D on the internet and it is explained much better than the way you put it. Also, as other posters have mentioned, this is a very sensitive subject and if it was that easily sorted why aren't GPs recommending the same?

dholtuk2

onewingedangel wrote: »

If I'm completely honest I found vitamin d helps too.
sorry.xx

Dont be sorry, we are all open to tips and advice. I think some people just have wrong attitude

dholtuk2

If anyone is interested, I have just bought myself a 200ml bottle of Bio Oil. Thought I might give it a go for a few months as there is nothing to loose (except £16 it cost me) x

Ted_Hutchinson

dholtuk2 wrote: »

You may actually be right about the vitamin D thing, but your attitude is completely wrong.

I'm sorry you don't like my manner. I try to be patient but it seems so obvious to me that the natural level of vitamin d that enables breast milk to flow replete with vitamin d and that allows your body to store vitamin D3 should be the optimum we should all strive to attain and maintain that I find it incomprehensible that others seem to think the current situation is acceptable. At best UK aduls have only half the optimum amount and at the end of winter just a quarter of that amount.

You are pushing this on people in a way which makes no sense at all to the majority of us.

I'm sorry you find it difficult to follow but as most of my posts get deleted, I get exasperated and threads become difficult to follow. The reason for the links to scientific medical research papers is to show people where I am getting my information from. I accept that many are difficult to read but if you stick with it for long enough you will eventually understand. The sheer volume of Vit d papers should be sufficient for you to grasp that this is an exciting and developing field of knowledge and it's worth checking regularly to see what new information has been discovered.

The purpose of this forum is for moneysaving and NOT health advice therefore I am obliged to present the information I feel it is necessary for you to know in order to make moneysaving vitamin purchases in an indirect manner.

This article for Canadian doctors is fairly easy to understand providing you grasp the idea that most Canadians live further south (nearer the equator) than the UK, Being a continent means they also get 30% more hours of sunshine overall, and they fortify cereals/milk with vit d and we don't so recommended amounts for them will be insufficient for us.

Also, as other posters have mentioned, this is a very sensitive subject and if it was that easily sorted why aren't GPs recommending the same?

Our GP's have no knowledge of the use of D3 because it isn't available for them to prescribe. We have an official recommendation that suggests
Most people should be able to get all the vitamin D they need from their diet and by getting a little sun. This is totally untrue. Most UK adults are vitamin D insufficient.

We know how much Vitamin d the human body uses daily and we also know that the maximum we can obtain from our diet is around 500iu/daily therefore diet can only be expected (if we eat oily fish daily) to supply a tenth of our daily needs.

We know also from this work that people who spend all day every day working outdoors in Omaha (more hrs sun + nearer the equator than UK) only average 2800iu/daily over the year and are insufficient in the winter. Therefore is simply isn't true that face/hands exposure in the UK can provide a meaningful amount of vitamin d. If we know it doesn't work in the middle of the USA for people who spend all day everyday working outdoors why are UK health professionals trying to fob people here off with misinformation?

You will not find UK GP's giving out advice or information that runs counter to the current medical consensus.


In order to change the current consensus takes time. This book looking at the history of medicine shows Bad Medicine: Doctors Doing Harm Since Hippocrates nothing has changed.

You can get your 25(OH)D tested here or via your GP from ~The Doctors Laboratory around £40. The more people who ask for their levels to be checked the sooner GP's will realise there is need for this.

The wrong attitude in my view is one that fails to apply common sense to health matters. We evolved as humans over 2 million years living an outdoor life with 25(OH)D levels of between 50-100ng 125nmol/l-250nmol/l. There are over 900 different body processes that are Vitamin D dependent. It is inexcusable to recommend limiting exposure to natural sunlight without recommending the use of adequate levels of supplementation that supply an equivalent amount of vitamin d.

This book The vitamin D cure is worth reading and there is more information and further useful resources here.

melancholly

dholtuk2 wrote: »

You may actually be right about the vitamin D thing, but your attitude is completely wrong. You are pushing this on people in a way which makes no sense at all to the majority of us. You dont have to be so abrupt in your mannor and maybe write your posts so that they are easily understood. I have personally read stuff about the benefits of vit D on the internet and it is explained much better than the way you put it. Also, as other posters have mentioned, this is a very sensitive subject and if it was that easily sorted why aren't GPs recommending the same?

i said this politely to ted well over a year ago, along with countless other people, but he just refuses to listen. it's far easier for him to continue to believe that he is a lone voice against the medical establishment, who are all together in a conspiracy to deliberately block people having access to vitamin D (because with a cash strapped NHS they would actively stop access to a cheap supplement that had all the health prevention benefits with no risk that he suggests as a conspiracy, it makes no sense!). that's easier than adapting the way he presents his message to actually try to help people to understand. his insensitivity (especially towards the parents of autistic children - one example i will never forget) is remarkable but yet persistent.

vitamin D undoubtably has health benefits, but long term effects of high dosage are unknown, which is probably why medical professionals (the ones with years of training in all aspects of health, rather than self taught about one tiny issue!) are resistant. which i think they should be - high doses of other fat soluble vitamins have been associated with increased death rates in the elderly (e.g. vitamin E) and i think a cautious attitude is the safest for public health. i also cannot take seriously the idea that this one supplement will prevent all known disease..... reducing risk is one thing, but the claims ted makes are just too extreme to be taken seriously.

what you find is any comment that is less than 100% in agreement with ted just leads to an attacking reply about how you're just too stupid to understand. he refuses to take on any advice about how he is putting his point across (the reply to your comment with a million external links to scientific papers being a classic example!).

IHateDida

I used Roaccutane at 26 for 3 months - dry lips (which Blistex cured - I always carried a tube with me) and a dry inner nose - but it worked wonders. I hardly ever have spots nowadays and the side effects lasted only whilst I was on the drug. I was and still am so impressed with the results - but obviously it doesn't suit everyone, I was aware of the side effects but to me they were worth the possible risks after having acne theres nothing better than having blemish free skin. I never found anything else that worked; homeopathy, topical lotions and creams etc.