Jump to content

Vitamin D


Anglefire
 Share

Recommended Posts

The 5pm Parliament debate today on VitD3 was an utter waste of time.  About 3 MP's in the chamber.

MP David Davies put forward a very good argument. The Gov't spokeswoman simply spewed out the standard rubbish. No change there.

The Matt Hancocks TV support Vallance, must be laughing all the way to the bank. He has invested £600,000 in one of the Pharma companies.

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Nigel Clark said:

I voted for what I thought was the least bad option from a very disappointing choice of candidates. Guess many others felt the same.

I guess your comment is shared by many many Americans! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Iain T said:

An excellent video which supports vitD. 

This is on the ZOE covid survey website. 

Totally agree  . Dr John Campbell has been giving excellent  regular analyses and information on the Pandemic since Feb 2020.

He is a first class educator and his views are very sound.

He has always been a strong, evidence- based advocate fo Vit D3.

He has a world wide audience.

If Public Health England had a fraction of his ability or watched his videos life would   now be a lot easier for many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mainly rely on Professor Spector and Dr Campbell for sound views and true updates. Most of the media reports are scaremongering or just plain 'fake news'! 

According to ZOE the R number in London is now 1, good news. 

Iain 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

if you like reading up on the Hormone VitD3 then we have a big thread going on the TRRegister forum https://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/72125-coronavirus/

Our main expert is Emeritus Professor Peter Cobold. 

He was investigating D3  for Parkingson's etc long before C19 appeared, But he was onto it like a shot and has predicted many of the outcomes over the last year.

It is a very long thread

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We listened to a Radio 4 documentary about vitamin D 10 years ago, and my wife and I have taken 2,000IU/day of vitamin D (plus 100ug K2 to keep the calcium in the bones) ever since. I've been following and occasionally contributing to the discussion over at the TR Forum, so when I learned back in March that you could get a blood test for £29, we got ours done. My Nearest & Dearest was 89nmol/L and I was 63nmol/L (this is 25(OH)D3). This was at the very end of winter - the sun is too low at our latitude for our skin to make vitamin D for 6 months from November to March so it was the perfect time for a blood test. The results taught me 2 things; different people take different amounts of vitamin D to achieve a given blood serum level (even accounting for weight) and 2,000IU is too low to achieve the sort of blood serum level which our ancestors would have had - 100~150nmol/L. We now take 4,000IU/day. There is a vitamin D estimator spreadsheet which you can download and play with. In my case it was 29% out compared with the test results, but at least it would get you in the ball park. It shows that the NHS 400IU/day is totally pathetic - marginal even for bone health and useless for the other benefits including innate and adaptive immunity, airway inflamation, etc. which require 100~150nmol/L 25(OH)D.

Taking vitamin D is very safe and cheap so, as has been stated - there is no down side except a small dent in the wallet. The fact that government and the NHS keep saying vitamin D's benefit is not proven, reminds me of tobacco and climate change denial. You just have to throw in the element of doubt by saying the case is not proven, to kick the can down the road and maintain the status quo. It's unethical to do a randomised controlled trial on smoking, and you can't do an RCT on the planet (cuz we've only got the one!) so people with and alternative agenda simply point to the doubt. That's the tactic they used to keep selling cigarettes, and some still do with fossil fuel. The question is, what's the alternative agenda for vitamin D deniers?

Cheers, Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Richard,

that is a very good post.   

If you had had an infection during the winter that would also knock your VitD3 level as it is constantly being used to combat the bugs.  However 2000IU/day is on the low side of optimum. for an adult.

Regarding the deniers. 

1 - They refer to large scale RCT (Random Controlled test) - who will pay for this. The Welcome/Gates Accelerator designed to give fast start funding to vaccine research will not fund any non-patentable drugs - they are after the long term profit. Nice people.  This last year would have been perfect for the UK Gov't to action such research as they have many many very sick people to test.  No point in testing a dead person for their Vit D level - It's a bit late.

2,  Because the Gov't has taken so long to even accept that Vit D may help many many people have died or are permanently damaged they have blood on their hands and egg on their face.  Over the last few months they have been slowly rolling out VitD3 for winter use and acknowledge that 4000IU/day as a max does. BUT they do not say what the max dose it used for. Not bones and that is for sure.

3, Patrick Vallance, Gov't adviser and TV personality, DOES have a vested interest in the vaccine. He has £600,000 invested in one of the Pharma companies.

4, NICE, SAGE, etc  are staffed by clinical experts all trying to be the best in their profession. And in order to achieve this they set very high standards that only ever take years to overcome.  They allowed the recent vaccines and Dexamethasone to be fast tracked into the system which under normal conditions they would not allow.

However they will not recognise the years of research, all be it small scale, in the Hormone VitD3.  But then there is no massive profit in it. 

The accumulative size of these small scale trials/tests far out weigh many RCT's that NICE would be happy with. AND these trials have not shown a failure except pf one that was inconclusive.

 

The Gov't and its advisers need to send a out big apology

Roger

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RogerH said:

3, Patrick Vallance, Gov't adviser and TV personality, DOES have a vested interest in the vaccine. He has £600,000 invested in one of the Pharma companies.

 

He did work for GSK and apparently he has a deferred bonus of 43,111 shares worth £600,000.  So not really invested. And the gsk one is not on the current list of approved vaccines in the U.K.  

Next you will be saying that the vaccine has a bill gates tracker in it  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand this argument, so hopefully someone will clear it up for me, and apologies if my often over-simplistic view causes any offence.

If we're saying that people need to take vitamin D, then how is the Gov to blame if they don't? If people are weaker at this time of year due to reduced sunlight levels, and Vitamin D is being talked about as an aid to health, then what's to stop them taking it? I'm sorry for being dim, but it seems to me that if people want to take Vitamin D, well, it's available, go and do it. If you don't want to, don't. We have all sorts of groups out there on various diets - vegans, vegetarians etc - who are eating their own preferred foods and taking their own preferred supplements without having to wait for the government to tell them it's okay. I'm also assuming that when people go to hospital, they're being treated with boosters such as vitamins to help their battle against Covid and aid their recovery; but by that stage they've already suffered from a lack of vitamins which is probably why they ended up weaker in the first place. So: it's not the fault of the NHS, by the time they see people it's often very late in the process, but unless we have the nanny state once again forcing us to take various additives in our food, it seems we have a choice, and if we want to take Vitamin D as a supplement, it's readily available.

Am I missing something vital?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colin, the gov't/NHS advice is to take 400IU/day, which is marginally just enough for bone health. Vitamin D researchers and the results of many trials, both before and during COVID, say that we should be taking much more than that because the other benefits of vitamin D (immunity, inflammation, cancer, brain health and loads more things I've forgotten) only happen with much higher blood serum levels. The NHS does admit that 4,000IU/day is safe, and I would suggest something like this amount is what most people need to achieve 100~150nmol/L, which is what our ancestors would have had. But because we lead such indoor lives these days (even people in Italy and Spain are vitamin D deficient) we don't get enough sunlight, and with the advent of sunscreen we shield our skin from UVB when we do venture outside.

Personally, I'm against mandatory fortification of foodstuffs, but I think that a lot of people who haven't gone in to the science don't know what level they need to take. And the NHS keeps bleating that 400IU is enough. It isn't - it's no where near enough!

Cheers, Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Anglefire said:

Next you will be saying that the vaccine has a bill gates tracker in it

Does`nt It?. 🤣

Some of our "older" neighbours have had theirs, having to travel 15 miles each way to get it. We assume from that it is the Pfzizer one. It`s Rumoured that our local surgery is starting next week. So from that we understand it will be the Oxford one, not needing the same level of refrigeration.

We were "advised" to take Vit D (pills) last year. But both of us suffered from stomach issues. Which cleared up once we stopped them. Mrs P. was later prescribed a large dose of a different "variety" to get her system "up", prior to an operation, she had to reduce the intake again because of issues with stomach. It would appear that some people cannot tolerate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, rlubikey said:

Colin, the gov't/NHS advice is to take 400IU/day, which is marginally just enough for bone health. Vitamin D researchers and the results of many trials, both before and during COVID, say that we should be taking much more than that because the other benefits of vitamin D (immunity, inflammation, cancer, brain health and loads more things I've forgotten) only happen with much higher blood serum levels. The NHS does admit that 4,000IU/day is safe

Cheers, Richard

Thanks Richard - as with many things, I think they're all erring on the side of caution with the dosage, it appears we can't risk a one-size-fits-all dose and the the lower quoted might be the minimum we need for basic health. If the NHS also says 4000 is safe, perhaps a higher dosage might not suit all, and I don't think anyone in today's claim culture is going to state a mandatory higher amount which may cause health issues in others. Even from reading the other guys' posts on here it seems it's fine for some but causes problems in others. So: it comes down to individual health and personal requirement.

If you could get vitamin D from rain I'd be overdosed... pouring down again and the garden's a bog, but still nice to get outdoors when the sun shines between the showers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug. Yes, this spring and summer was great. Warm and sunny and I was a "Gentleman of Leisure" so got out most days. I was able to build up my tan so that I didn't need any sunscreen. Hours in the saddle around the middle of the day meant we must have got really good levels. This is something people don't mention - you need to be out in the sun in the middle of the day in April/May and August/September, and for a few hours around midday in June/July. A morning or evening stroll isn't good enough as the sun's too low. Also, with so many people working - and eating lunch - at their desks, you only have two days a week to take the sun. What proportion of the time here in Blighty do we have warm enough days to bare our arms and legs on those two days each week? When we had much more out-door lives we would have got the exposure on the few days available, not least because we were probably labouring away and glad to roll our sleeves up!

Cheers, Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Colin Lindsay said:

I think they're all erring on the side of caution with the dosage, it appears we can't have a one-size-fits-all dose and the the lower quoted might be the minimum we need for basic health. If the NHS also says 4000 is safe, perhaps a higher dosage might not suit all, and I don't think anyone in today's claim culture is going to state a mandatory higher amount which may cause health issues in others. So: it's all down to individual health and personal requirement.

Erring on the side of stupidity more like it. It's true that one size doesn't fit all, but 400IU is for bone health only - there's a very obvious connection between vitamin D and rickets - which has only really affected human-kind since the industrial revolution with people working in factories, narrow streets and pollution limiting access to sunlight. 4000IU is absolutely safe or the NHS wouldn't make the claim - in fact much higher levels are safe but they have added a generous safety margin.

1 hour ago, PeteH said:

We were "advised" to take Vit D (pills) last year. But both of us suffered from stomach issues. Which cleared up once we stopped them.

I'm sorry to hear that you both had issues PeteH. Absolutely the best vitamin D you can get comes from sunlight, which of course is free. We didn't evolve to get it from food, though those living further north do just that. You have to eat a lot of fish. Eskimos eat oily fish for breakfast, dinner and tea.

Cheers, Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...